I just stumbled upon this while surfing the net.They say that after August 31, 2008, they will no longer be able to support the retrieval of license keys for the songs purchased from MSN Music or the authorization of additional computers.This means that after that date, for whatever reason my computer will someday decide not to work anymore, all this music I have from them will be just a load of useless junk.This really sucks
What am I supposed to do with all that music, I was wondering if there's any way of, let's say, convert these protected files?

Assuming you can't find something to break the DRM (and that'd be against the DMCA anyway woudn't it) connect a cable from the line out of your sound card to the the line in. Play the music and record back at the same time. The "analogue hole" is a great thing.

Or you can do the tried and true "burn and rip" method if all else fails.

I think this is a good take on the subject

A virtual sound card (driver), or a physical E-MU soundcard which allows for loopback to Wave In.

I wonder what "multimedia experience" crap did Microsoft push up everybody a** to sell this useless junk.

If you're worried about DMCA then the analogue hole is also a violation of it. And the quality would suck as well.

The entire music industry is trying foist various ungodly schemes on us that make us dependent on them for our daily music. With all due respect and sympathy to the OP, anyone who gets into bed with a ho of the music industry should not be surprised with what they end up with.

No one should have any music in their collection that's DRM'ed or restricted in where/how they can listen to it. Not only are you not doing yourself any favors, but you're also signalling to the industry that we're willing to eat the bone they throw us.

I have a Rhapsody subscription that I got through Sonos, and I'm morally conflicted about that even though I don't use it to listen to music. What I use it for is research - when I acquire a song through some other means (perfectly legal, of course!) and I want to be sure what version or remix I'm hearing I check it on Rhapsody to make sure.

welcome to the wonderful world of drm!

ballmer has already told ya: "drm is the future"!

Very sad indeed - I resisted buying any DRM'd stuff because of the possibility of just this type of thing happening. And then it happened. I guess its not paranoia if it really happens.

seems they haven't thought to write a tool that could migrate all of the licenses to the new zune marketplace ones...

Or at least to provide some sort of copies of those songs but without that drm.But they don't, and let's be serious it's not like i'm gonna change my computer until august 31 just to keep that music.So why not look for another solution?And if there's some soft that doesn't crack the drm, it just finds a way to go around it without messing with the protection it's fine by me.If you don't crack it, it's not illegal right?
I thought of the burn and rip but I find it a total waste of a lot of cd's.

CAN you do a burn-and-rip on MSN files?

Anyway, even if you could, you're going through two transcodings - MSN->CDA and then CDA to whatever your preferred format is. And I'll bet the MSN one wasn't all that great to start with. So you're still talking about a quality downgrade.

Yes. All "purchased" music is burnable from any of the commercial services. With all the online store consolidation over the years, at exit... most users were instructed to burn the protected content to CD if they want to preserve it. MSN Music is no different.

There have been persistent reports on some iTunes discussion forums that some recent versions of the iTunes sw no longer allowed DRM'ed iTunes songs to be burned to CD, although whether this was due to a bug, or a deliberate policy decision by Apple was unclear.

Anyway it still doesn't get the OP around the multiple-transcoding problem - a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy . . .

I'm pretty sure that is considered a single transcode, not two.

Out of interest... isn't there some sort of Daemon Tools for burning a virtual CD (it just emulates a drive with an empty CD in it and then writes an image to the harddisk). Could save a lot of CDs and work.

Why don't you want to use a virtual soundcard?

Care to elaborate?

If you're referring to Tunebite, Tunebite clearly says that it "removes DRM", which places it in explicit violation of the DMCA. On their website they say they exploit a legal loophole allowing people to make copies for their private use, but they have it backwards. Title 17, Section 10, Subsection D is explicitly superceded by DMCA, not the other way around.

I get it now: If the discussion is about getting the music without violation of any Copyright acts, I have nothing to add. Though it does not make sense. How could any copyright agency place restrictions on how does one use his computer and more importantly enforce these restrictions?

In an isolated computer network I can click as many times as I want to and always be able to hide.

I have no sympathy for anyone who has been stung by DRM woes. To be blunt, its your own fault for paying money to borrow the music. What did you expect?

Making use of the analogue hole does not constitute "breaking a technological measure" which is why Big Content hate it so much. So then you are back to license agreements and if transferring the recording between mediums is legal. At least in the UK the answer historically would be no, however in the US things might be different.

Done with the right equipment the quality would not "suck" one pass through ADA really doesn't affect things very much. In fact the original recording probably passed through ADA many times as it passed through various studio outboard gear etc.



That might not actually work. It's highly unlikely that a loopback driver would be Secure Audio Path compliant and be signed by MS as such. In that case Windows Media player may refuse to play DRMed files out of it.

I have to say I totally agree with this. I have never bought, and never will buy, copy protected music.

The amount of money that goes to the artists from these high profile download sites is pathetic. I try to buy as direct as I can from the artists; their website's are normally the best. Or some speciality download sites are better.

Slightly off topic I guess, but this DRM and indeed the whole copyright record label owning bullsh1t that is around gets me very annoyed. The record industry need to move with the times. They're all money grabbing ***** anyway. I'll happily support the artists, but let them get more of my money to produce the good music.

/gets off soapbox an goes to bed

It does in the US, thanks to the DMCA. Basically ANY act of attempting to circumvent an access control (known as "technical protection measures") (probably even this conversation we're having) is a violation.

And, BTW, before you get too happy that you're not in the US, if you're in the EU many (but not all) of the same provisions exist in the EUCD (effective May 22, 2001).

I did not realize this much DRM security existed outside of Vista. Previously I've dealt with regular protected WMA's this way.

That's that, I went ahead and bought it, how was i supposed to know that they would eventually close it down?And as long as they don't offer a decent solution, I consider myself free to find the way out of this that suits me better.
What if i buy a cd and rip the music to the computer so that I can easily access it accross my home network?Would that be making illegal copies out of it?
I don't see what's illegal, as long as I keep everything for my own personal use and enjoyment.

Well actually they say on the site that Tunebite legally removes drm.It does not crack the drm, it re records the files and the recordings are saved as files without drm.I for one don't see what's illegal in this cause it does't mess with the drm, it's not even near in the neighbourhood of doing this.As long as the files are for my own personal enjoyment in my own home and on my own computer and I have no intention whatsoever to share them on some p2p network or something like that, I don't see where 's the problem in using such a program fr the drm'ed files.

Great news - i prefer a true sense of insecurity over a false sense of security, any day!

Everything breaks down sooner or later.
that also why i would never buy DRM music

But yes you have been screwed and I'm sorry on you behalf. its is a shitcase and show how little the consumer is protected against these kind s of big companies.

i believe the wording on msn music was buy and not borrow so thet should by morale give you a DRM free copy.

i can only hope that you have learned and you can voice this issues to friends and famillies so that the "word" may spread that DRM is NOT the future.

Hint: fairuse4wm

I stopped buying DRM crippled crap the day I was unable to restore my DRM backup (not msn)

The RIAA says "yes" but it's never been tested in court. There are many companies (e.g., Sonos, Logitech, Roku, etc) making products that DEPEND on doing just that. My entire 1500 CD collection is ripped to my NAS, and resides there (for Sonos) and on my iPod, so many of us in the music community are HOPING the RIAA will put its lawyers where their mouth is, so this will get tested. It's striking that in the literally HUNDREDS of lawsuits brought by the RIAA for file-sharing they almost always involve file copying/ripping but the RIAA has avoided introducing those as counts, so they probably have no confidence in their claim. I don't have any confidence in their claim either, but I'd still like to see it tested in court.


Saying you "don't see" what's illegal assumes you've looked. Have you? It's strking how many people in web forums have opinions about what's legal or what's "fair use" WRT copyrighted material who have never actually read the law or and become familiar with relevant cases.

EVERYONE in the US with an interest in the topic should at least familize themselves with the existing law, especially Title 17, Chapter 10, subchapter D and especially revisions under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, plus the standing provisions of the DMCA. It would also not be a bad idea to be familiar with some of the major items of case law, especially Sony -vs- Universal, 1984 and the RIAA -vs- Napster case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in 2000.

We're all free to make our own decisions in our battles against the record industry, but at least they should be informed decisons. If we drive a car we know traffic law; if we use audio files of copyrighted music we should know the laws that pertain to that.




I've never bought DRM'ed music and I never will.

I'm not really into video or games, and part of the reason is that those things are even more tightly locked up than music.

Well, I was figuratively speaking when I said "I don't see", and after all I'm just speaking for myself.
I'm feeling stupid to be told even what you can do and can't do on your computer with some files that you already paid for anyways.If I don't do anything to the files, that is crack the drm , where's the illegality?

Have you actually READ the DMCA? Features like SAP were added to Microsoft sw for DMCA-compliance because intercepting the signal after decoding is still considered an attempt to defeat DRM.

This is exactly what I was talking about in my other post here about people have have opinions on these topics who can't be bothered to study them first.

You won't know unless you read up on it, will you?


Look, this may be splitting hairs (ya think?) but there's a difference between someone saying, "I don't CARE about yer stinkin' laws" and saying, "I don't think what I'm doing is illegal".

Someone who takes the latter position is obliged to have some basis for their position. That means reading and studying these laws and the ways courts have interpreted them. Reasonable, well-informed people may still disagree - that's why we have federal court cases, because two legal teams disagree about the interpretation or applicability of some law.

What I'm objecting to here is all the people on HA (and also all the people I see on various art and photography forums where I hang out) who spout off about copyrights and fair-use and similar subjects who've obviously never taken one look at the laws, cases, or other relevant information.

Or, all the people who demand that I send them a copy of a copyrighted paper when I point them at it, and demand either a web copy or a free copy for themselves. THAT manouever has gotten to be a way to avoid facts in web debates.

And to your photography forum comment, spot on. I won't put up anything beyond 700(l)x500(h) for that reason.

Instead of these useless statements, why don't you try to defend users rights to keep material they legetimately have paid for?

It sounds like you make people that break drm as bad as those who uses p2p - I don't think that's a fair comparison.

I think it's great that Microsoft shuts this service down. They were pushing drm, and now they are pulling the plug. ALL CUSTOMERS BEND OVER AND FEEL THE MIGHTY POWER. I hope customers will avoid any drm in the future because of this.

If you start off with DRM, and end up with no DRM, and you don't have the permission of whoever put the DRM on to start with, then you have circumvented the DRM.


The problem is that it's illegal.


The useless statements are (it seems to me) to demonstrate why DRM is a bad idea and to persuade people not to use it. Getting round it may be useful in the short term, but
a) it's illegal (depending on jurisdiction)
b) it doesn't actually solve the long term problem


I don't think that comparison is or can be made. Both activities are illegal and I don't think anyone here is (or should be) trying to push a moral argument about how "wrong" or "right" either is.


The consequence is that a number of people are unable to legally listen to music they have paid for. I agree that the long term benefits (if they exist) may outweigh this, but it's a bit unfair for those stuck in the middle. If it moves people away from DRM then yes, this can't happen again, but the present fact is that it has happened once.

Answer?

http://www.magnatune.com/

PS as a tangential point, all of this isn't specifically a failing of DRM, it's actually a failing of using proprietary forms of DRM. If there were a DRM scheme developed that used an open specification and thus could be implemented by anyone, then this situation would never have arisen. That's not to say I'd support an "open" DRM (or indeed have any idea how it could exist) but it's a little aside to think about anyhow.