I hope you can help me...
how to create windows media file with the DRM protect content ?
In WMencoder you import a profile but I wonder how to get this profile...

thank you very much in advance!

Sincerely ,
Nick

Are you sure that you want to do such a thing? In the future you might render yourself unable to access your own music due to a simple mistake. It has happened before, do a search and you might find the thread.

Protect your files: Pack them into RAR/ZIP/ACE and create an encrypted archive if you really want that. If you meant you want to protect them against data loss, use par2. DRM is not what you're looking for.

to be honest, yes !


IYHO, how can I protect in WMEncoder 9 w/ the DRM what I rip ?
how can I get a DRM profile ? is it free ?

Check this page. It says how NOT to copy protect your music. Just do the opposite of what it says.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...#copyprotection

I suggest you also read how to backup and restore your licenses.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...z.aspx#bkrestre

I'm sure other HA members will be pleased to tell you why not to use DRM. I share their point of view.

It is freely available today. But such an amazing technology could be charged for a nominal fee in the near future. So be quick!

DRM is also on by default in the WMP series. Enjoy!

I remember "Secure" in the SDMI and "Open" in the OpenMG were ridiculed because those words normally refer to individiual freedom/security whereas the intention of all DRM systems is about corporate strangle on the rights of individuals. Apparently people are starting to like them.

thank you very much for your help !!
i hope i'll create DRM protected files !!

hummm...
just a little question:
If I use the WMenc and If i want protect my files,I think i must register to MS to get a DRM profile (xxx.drm),
right ?

If I want to use the WMP, I've to check "copy protect music",
right ?

thnk you very much,
sorry for being a bit newbie....

You need to set up an account with a license provider before you can protect content (which involves spending some money) if you use Wmenc. It is meant for content providers, not for end users. Here is an url to get more info.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...ectContent.aspx

Your second sentence is true.

By the way, I am as much of a newbie as you. I search for the informtion I give you on google...

And before you leave, please tell us why, but why you need DRM, for I cannot fathom why anybody would use it in full knowledge of what he is doing...

Well, to be honest,
1/WM9 rocks: i'm listening to Iron Maiden and I see the picture of the cover in WMP,the lyrics,the album info...etc...
2/ you know, I'm a law student in France and i'm horrified when I think millions of people are dl warez or MP3 !
and w/ the DRM, I'm sure my bros/pals won't try to burn or copy my files !

you understand how i'm involded to protect intellectual property rights...
and BTW I love MS for it's habilty to make respect their rights !!

just a precision:

Is WMA9 safe enough @ 240~350 kbps (VBR mode) ?
I mean can it compete w/ MPC/AAC at this BR ?

sincerely,
Nick

I suggest you use WMA9Pro at Q90. On transfer to portables it gets reencoded anyway.

1. First off, WMA9 does not "rock." Period. The ripper in WMP9 is crappy to say the least. Why do you need to see the album info in WMP? Go to Google.com and search for that stuff if you feel the need.

2. If you are so horrified, then don't let people download your music or participate in file sharing communities such as Kazaa. You can use un-protected music compression formats without participating in file sharing. If you don't want your "bros/pals" to burn your music, password protect your computer in the BIOS or at the OS startup. Then it’s hard for them to burn anything. Or you could just ask them nicely, because they are your friends .

If you are so "involved to protect intellectual property rights," then you should REALLY hate the WMA format and Windows Media Player. Microsoft collects data on the music you listen to and gives your player a unique ID so that they can personally identify you. Why do they have the right to do that? I don't need MS to "enhance my listening experience." That's why all those little boxes on the WMP9 privacy options tab don't have check boxes in them on my system. That’s why I block all of WMP's Internet transmissions with a firewall. And that’s why I don't use the WMA format. Ever.



No, WMA9 is not "safe enough" to use in the 240-350kbps range. No, it cannot compete with AAC/MPC at these bitrates. The sound is not even close to what I would consider transparent. If you really want to use the WMA format w/ DRM, I would suggest that you use it's lossless mode, as this is the ONLY mode IMO that will not ruin the sound of the music. MPC -q5 and EAC is a much better choice than WMA will ever be.

I understand you ViPER313...but I don't agree w/ you.
why ?



1/ If you are so horrified, then don't let people download your music or participate in file sharing communities such as Kazaa.
I don't use Kazaa or edonkey: I've never shared any files protected by the law, I think such a software is the worst thing since virus or trojans.

2/If you don't want your "bros/pals" to burn your music, password protect your computer in the BIOS or at the OS startup.
I can do that yes, but I can use DRM too:
I think you hate MS (like many people) but you can't deny they truely have developed a good system to protect digital audio files...


3/If you are so "involved to protect intellectual property rights," then you should REALLY hate the WMA format and Windows Media Player.Microsoft collects data on the music you listen to and gives your player a unique ID ...

this has nothing to do with intellectual property rights:
I don't see why MS should be avoided, the DRM protect intellectual property rights, it's just the truth.
And for this ID,that's a different problem,
IMHO this is not a real problem:you can desactivate the ID...

4/ Is WMA really so bad in terms of quality ?
I thought WMA9Pro was good ?

thank you all for you replies !

I'm not sure about WM9 files but there are programs such as UnF*ck that allow you to decode the files i think, WM versions less than or equal to version 7. IF this ability has not been hacked up for WM9 files, it probably will be in the futre and anyone could gain access to your files.

If you search the forum you may find examples of this program for older WM formats.


Just adding a new perspective into the mixing pot, i don't want to get into the whole DRM or Microsoft debate, each to their own!


KRistian

This whole thread looks like created in order to start a flame war.

Nick, I must mention to you that your bros/pals may be copying any CDs that are not safely locked up. Make sure you never leave a disk lying around or sitting in a player.

I assume you obviously will password-protect your license, and logout every time you walk away from the computer.

And worst of all, should you ever lose the license or its password, your music shall be toast. You will have to re-rip or use illegal software to unlock it.

Which also means that there is nothing stopping your bros/pals from using the illegal software.

Also, last time I heard (long ago), encryption was illegal in France. Which might mean you may not secure your music.

Now seriously, are you brain-washed or just trolling?

Absolutely not !

maybe both...

just wanted to know how to protect my audio files...
sorry if you thought I was trolling, that never was my intention.

Sincerely,
Nick

I find your desire to implement DRM very confusing, Nick. Why is it so important to you to protect your files with DRM? It seems like you expect your friends to break into your PC to access your files and spread them illegally or something. I highly doubt this would happen... Sorry if I'm being too inquisitive but I would consider the quality of a codec and the lack of DRM to be benefits. Why would you want to risk locking yourself out of your own files, and using an inferior lossy format?

I personally have ripped all of my legally purchased audio CDs to my computer and I do not share them illegally. This sounds like what you are doing as well. Why does DRM need to be applied in this case? It can only make things worse... Even if you are in the law profession that doesn't mean you're obligated to use DRM.

Nick

I don't really get it, people here offer you alternatives (better in my opinion) and you still want to use wma. Anyway let's assume you're not trolling or trying to start a flamewar. lets take a look at the facts :

- Wma doesn't really rock in my opinion and throwing bits at the problem aint gonna fix that. (in lossy mode that is offcourse)
- Wma can indeed display albumcovers, lyrics, ... (can also be done with other formats) but you're practically stuck to the ms media player and the ms platforms for that matter.
- Nice bro's and pal's you have if you can't even trust them around your files, drm can lock them out but you might even lock yourself out in the future. Imho password protection or encryption is a much simpler and more logical solution.
- As you said you never use/used kazaa or another filesharing program so you don't have to worry about you're files getting downloaded, another reason why the password protection or encryption would be good enough.
- Do you really believe in ms that much? I mean they've screwed up with their passport system, who says that drm is flawless? (don't get me wrong I also use ms often but tend to keep an open mind to the alternative OS's and formats out there)
- It looks to me that you care more about getting drm into your files than the actual quality, in my book quality definately comes first. I have quite some encoded albums now but there all for personal use only, I strangely enough don't have any problems keeping my files private.

Your choices just seem quite strange to me. But hey you're free in the choices you make, let's just keep it that way .
Anyway these are "my" thoughts about the subject.

If you want to protect your stuff, why not use an encrypted file system? Then you could use any audio format you want and any ripper you want. Encrypted volumes behave like logical discs, so use is completely transparent.

If you look around you will find old free PGP packages that still contain PGP-Disk. Another free software you could use (albeit also pretty old) is e4m ("encryption for the masses"). In case you can't find e4m, send me a PM. Commercial software includes BestCrypt (with which I've had very bad experience) and DriveCrypt (The authors of e4m and ScramDisk have joined forces to create this piece of software). You could use the built-in encrypted filesystem of Windows (2k and up, I believe) allthough there are some security flaws, it should be enough to hold off your family members and friends.

Btw: here in Germany it is considered legal to give away copies of your CDs to friends or relatives.

Or if you use XP or 2K (im presuming you are MS based, using WMP9!) then add a login password, therefore if you log out, or leave your computer idle then you'll have to know your password to access the PC again. Also don't share them. Therefore, you'll have to know your login password, and you won't be able to simply put the HD into another computer!.

If your music files are of major concern, right click on your root folder for your music, select properties --> advanced and tick "encrypt contents to secure data".

If that still isn't enough, use PGPdisk or something else. I would say these are more secure options than the DRM option. If you really like WMP9, you could still use the player and format, but have a more robust seurity. Hell, DRM and do the other stuff i mentioned as well, that way, you'll be really secure.

Hope i been of some help,

KRistian

Indeed: XP's file encryption is a much more straightforward AND secure way, and you are free to use it with any format and actually any file.

To utilize: right-click on your music folder, properties, advanced, encrypt, OK, OK, work through set up, done.

Sorry about being harsh earlier. Most of us fail to understand your reasons, but after all you have a fair right to do whatever you please with your backup copy.

Keep in mind that just as with DRM if you back up those files in the encrypted folder your chances of using that encrypted folder on another PC or on the same PC after a restore can be severely limited. Under Windows you can not recreate with any accuracy user names and ID's other than Administrator. There in lies the bright and another dim point. As administrator you might be able to recover the files. Then again so could others. The best suggestion is to use PGP or GPG with an easily rememberd yet somewhat obscure pass sentance etc. Something more complicated than just a single word. It is far more secure than even Windows DRM or file system encryption. And it can go wherever you go or survive system recovery easily.

As to WM9 quality. Well I don't like Microsoft and preffer the format never be used. But in the case of WM9 lossless there are no quality worries. It is just massively slower to encode than other lossless codecs perhaps outside of optimfrog. WM9 lossy at those bitrates is not all that bad either. Better than the older versions. But MPC would be a safer bet and even possibly AAC. Also if you would ever wish to use the music on a portable you need to check how and if your WM9 DRM might effect the portable. More portables support WMA than MPC and AAC combined ATM. But that may not apply to WMA files that are DRM locked.

Kazaa and such programs can be used for as much good as they can do harm, even though many people currently use them for illegal purposes. It's good that you don't want to, nor have ever shared files illegally. But relating file sharing to a virus or a Trojan is a bad analogy to say the least. Kazaa lite has never deleated my files or corrupted my data .



I don't hate Microsoft - in fact I'm typing this in Windows 2000 SP3 with Office 2000 to proofread / spell check. I just don't trust anyone who collects personal information with no truly positive use. DRM is by no means a good system to protect your music - there are many programs that can decode protected files or remove that protection all together, thus defeating its purpose. Real encryption is a better, higher security, higher quality solution.


It's not unbearable, but it is not transparent by any means, nor is it worth the extra 100kbps to have worse quality than MPC at -q5 . The one thing that WMA has going for it right now is it's compatibility with portable devices, but it's only good if you want to listen to music at around 64-96 kbps (IMO, it beats out MP3 at bitrates below 128kbps, but neither sound good B) .) In the 240-350kbps range, it's just a waste, because it doesn't scale all that well.

What can I say ?
First of all, thank you very to all for your replies !!!

to NickSD,
Why is it so important to you to protect your files with DRM?
why ? ... I would say I find MPC/Wavepack lossy better when it comes to audio quality, but in the over side when I see all this piracy activity on all P2P, I can't choose the status quo, aka I can't choose MP3 or MPC,

Sorry if I'm being too inquisitive
You're not !

Even if you are in the law profession that doesn't mean you're obligated to use DRM.
True.
but I'm sure in the near future, each A/V files will be digitally protected.

It seems like you expect your friends to break into your PC to access your files and spread them illegally or something.
Hopefully, no !
but i'm just a bit careful !


To Bylie:
drm can lock them out but you might even lock yourself out in the future. Imho password protection or encryption is a much simpler and more logical solution.
To Gecko,kritip & Doctor:
Encryt ?
Why not ?
but when I backup my files on CDR, how can I protect them ?
I mean Windows XP encryption feature is only available for the HD,right ?
MS has released a utility to use the DRM on 10 others PCs (if i'm right...).

To ViPER313:
In the 240-350kbps range, it's just a waste, because it doesn't scale all that well.
You mean WMA is not suitable for this BR ?

one time again: thank you !!!

Most disc encryption software, apart from encrypting whole partitions, can create so called container files. A huge file that from the outside looks like random data, but can be mounted as a virtual drive. You can create a ca 700MB container file, mount it and copy all the sensitive data you want to backup and burn the whole container to cd.

Some things to consider:
With WMA DRM you bind yourself to MS operating systems and the mercy of a huge company. If ever you wish to switch to Linux or BSD your files will be worthless. If you use disc encryption, at least you will be able to recover cross platform readable files if you want to move away from Microsoft. DRM is a one way ticket.

If you are paranoid enough to want to protect your media files from your friends, relatives, co-workers etc., you should be paranoid enough not to trust MS.

The old e4m can be downloaded here: http://members.lycos.co.uk/e4m/

I'm a fan of AAC and WMA9Pro, not for DRM, but anyway:

What the hell are you talking about? Having audio files on your disks doesn't automatically make you participate in P2P. If you're not using P2P apps, why do you want to DRM your files? You're making NO SENSE at all.

Nick Jr III:
Can you be specific about how you intend to use DRM? What are the "management" capabilities of WMA that you intend to consider / use? If I remember correctly, you can prevent copying altogether, restrict a number of copies, set a time limit for the file to "expire", "check out" a file for use on a portable (which then disables use of the original), etc. It isn't clear how you intend to use it. You must have something in mind if you plan to go this route.

The thing that I would be concerned about is if you set it up to not allow any copying (which would probably be necessary to prevent your trusted friends from sharing your music) then you can not back them up, transfer them to another computer like for when you upgrade or get a new hard drive, burn mixed CDs for your own use, etc. You will need to re-rip your collection every time you need/want a new computer or hard drive.

Does WMA work with one DRM file with licenses for all the WMA files or is there a license for each one? Pros and cons to both approaches. If you are the creator of the license can you change it later, to allow backups, etc. or is it a one time deal? If you personally wanted to burn a mixed disc for your own use (legal, yes?) is there a DRM management application that lets you change the restrictions?

It would seem that if you intend to prevent copying you are only interested in listening to the music on your computer and nowhere else. If this is true, I would agree with some of the other posts that there is probably a simpler and more effective way. How about a removable hard drive? One of those USB/Firewire drives would be even more effective at preventing copying - they can't copy what isn't there in the first place. Plus, this would allow you to use the files, legally, on any computer, back it up, make copies as needed, etc.

I'm wondering if you have really thought this through or just think the idea of DRM is interesting.

Of course, now I wonder if you can legally create DRM permissions on content that you are not the legal owner of. Wouldn't you be creating licenses on content use for content you do not have the copyrights for? If you want to prevent any copying of your own music, even copies that would fall under "fair use" doctrine, then isn't it illegal for you to copy the CDs to your hard drive in the first place? Seems contradictory that you allow yourself to make copies for your own use, but then want to prevent any further copies for some arbitrary reason. A little copying is good, but not too much? How is that logical?

DigitalMan >
You must have something in mind if you plan to go this route.
Nothing more and nothing less than protecting my files, aka: avoiding someone to get files during LAN parties for example.

and you know how it's easy to share files...

Does WMA work with one DRM file with licenses for all the WMA files or is there a license for each one?
No id, i haven't get a specific licence, i jst use the WMP DRM feature.
If you want a personal licence, i presume you have to pay for it


It would seem that if you intend to prevent copying you are only interested in listening to the music on your computer and nowhere else. If this is true, I would agree with some of the other posts that there is probably a simpler and more effective way.
reality checked !
I plan to switch to wavpack lossy then to encrypt w/ power archiver !

I'm wondering if you have really thought this through or just think the idea of DRM is interesting.
pur interrest.

finally i want to thank all of you for your replies:
I'm a bit newbie and thank to yours answers/remarks, i can't deny i'll have troubles if i change my computer: this a question I haven't asked myself !!

I have to say here that filesharing IMHO is not evil. The big a** corporations are trying to convince you as so. It's not because of filesharing, which is your godgiven right, that artists could make less money. It's because of those corporations who sell a cd for $15 (when the cost is around a cent) and give probably less than a dollar to the artists. If you want to see how naive you're being check this (by World Intellectual Property Organization) . It is such a childish and naive pursuit in which the record companies are in. The battle against filesharing is already over. It will soon be all too clear that we don't need those companies for content delivery because we can access the same information without them.

Their folly has become even more apparent in the latest cases against filesharing networks. I guess we'll be laughing at the past and these companies' stance in 20-30 years when filesharing is an essential part of our daily lives. It will be almost as ridiculous as the voting rights of the women issue of the past.

Consider a world in which every kind of information is free unless you use it for commerical purposes. That's my utopia. And hey, I'd be willing to donate to the artists a lot more than what they get at the moment if I know my donation goes to the artist I listen to (not to Britney Spears). Otherwise unless record companies sell the CDs for much less (which is not going to happen because of additional introduced costs like advertising and wages of the people who work for them) I simply refuse to pay that much. It's outrageous and unfair.

Couldn't hold myself

what a "wonderful artist"...
what a body...

in reality, isnt using WMA a DRM of sorts?

i mean, id never download one.

As an opponent of DRM, I can honestly say I hope you fail law school. The last thing the world needs is more lawyers arguing in favor of DRM.

I used to encode all my music in Liquid Audio, which employs a similar protection scheme. After a hard drive failure, I lost all the progams on my hard drive, and I was informed by Liquid that although they could reset my license, I couldn't use the new license to play the Liquid files I had already encoded, so I would have to reencode my entire collection. Needless to say, that was the end of this copy protection crap for me.

Edit: Sorry if that seemed a bit mean, but I've had very bad experiences with DRM and I've been especially against it ever since I read about Microsoft trying to copy protect pretty much the entire system.