Comments on: Spam all you want, but don’t crack DRM! http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/09/08/spam-all-you-want-but-dont-crack-drm/ Protecting your rights in the digital age Fri, 16 May 2008 04:01:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Joe Bange http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/09/08/spam-all-you-want-but-dont-crack-drm/#comment-2525 Joe Bange Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:51:44 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/09/08/spam-all-you-want-but-dont-crack-drm/#comment-2525 I didn't mean it would allow you to download without paying, I meant it would allow you to remove the DRM from the files you got from your subscription service, like yahoo's. I didn’t mean it would allow you to download without paying, I meant it would allow you to remove the DRM from the files you got from your subscription service, like yahoo’s.

]]> By: Ryan Alexander http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/09/08/spam-all-you-want-but-dont-crack-drm/#comment-2508 Ryan Alexander Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:05:22 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/09/08/spam-all-you-want-but-dont-crack-drm/#comment-2508 If it's a subscription-based service than the downloads are already unlimited in amount and the program has nothing to do with that. However if it is the kind of subscription service that will break or remove all the music you've already downloaded once you stop subscribing than yes, that perhaps it could be perceived as a threat, but that is a very different situation than presenting the context of 'once this program is on your computer you can steal unlimited music' No, you can't. Are far more appropriate statement would be 'Once this program is on your computer you can choose to re-enable the music you've already downloaded from your subscription service after ceasing your subscription.' If it’s a subscription-based service than the downloads are already unlimited in amount and the program has nothing to do with that. However if it is the kind of subscription service that will break or remove all the music you’ve already downloaded once you stop subscribing than yes, that perhaps it could be perceived as a threat, but that is a very different situation than presenting the context of ‘once this program is on your computer you can steal unlimited music’

No, you can’t. Are far more appropriate statement would be ‘Once this program is on your computer you can choose to re-enable the music you’ve already downloaded from your subscription service after ceasing your subscription.’

]]> By: Joe Bange http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/09/08/spam-all-you-want-but-dont-crack-drm/#comment-2486 Joe Bange Tue, 12 Sep 2006 01:01:09 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/09/08/spam-all-you-want-but-dont-crack-drm/#comment-2486 The BBC's article is not nessercery wrong, if they were referring to the subscription based services, where you pay monthly for access to all their music, though of course its only unlimited for a short while. The BBC’s article is not nessercery wrong, if they were referring to the subscription based services, where you pay monthly for access to all their music, though of course its only unlimited for a short while.

]]> By: Mark Beveridge » Blog Archive » FairPlay DRM cracked http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/09/08/spam-all-you-want-but-dont-crack-drm/#comment-2446 Mark Beveridge » Blog Archive » FairPlay DRM cracked Mon, 11 Sep 2006 11:01:01 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/09/08/spam-all-you-want-but-dont-crack-drm/#comment-2446 [...] Update: Microsoft has released a ’security patch’ for FairUse4WM [...] [...] Update: Microsoft has released a ’security patch’ for FairUse4WM [...]

]]> By: Ryan Alexander http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/09/08/spam-all-you-want-but-dont-crack-drm/#comment-2439 Ryan Alexander Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:24:55 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/09/08/spam-all-you-want-but-dont-crack-drm/#comment-2439 Also included in the original Schneier article is the fact that days after the patch was rushed out by microsoft, a new version of the program that not only was *not* stopped by the patch but worked *better* at removing the DRM (by expanding the versions of the DRM that it worked on) was out. The end result being that all of the end users paid the risk, downtime, and bandwidth for about 3 days of someone else's 'security'. Glyn was kind enough to point at two links relating to this: One from BoingBoing: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/08/25/windows_media_drm_cr.html and one from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5294750.stm The boingboing entry is spot on. The BBC however is woefully inaccurate, and all the worse it's inaccuracy leans heavily in the direction of the standard propaganda that is pushed by the music industry; from the BBC article: "It could spell problems for internet music shops, potentially enabling users to download unlimited files." No, it doesn't do that, for either interpretation of the word 'unlimited'. This horrible threat is nothing more than a program that removes the DRM from songs you have *already* downloaded. It can't go out to the music industry's sites and remove the DRM from them *before* you download them. 1. It has *no* effect on the amount of music you can download, that remains exactly the same, so for the 'as much as we want' interpretation of 'unlimited' it's completely incorrect. 2. It is only useable on files on your own computer, so while it *does* remove the limitations on the files imposed by DRM, thereby making them 'unlimited' by a different interpretation of the word, but this process happens post-download the original files that are downloaded are still just as limited. And perhaps even more importantly each individual end user has to CHOOSE to put this program on their computer, and then it will only affect files that each person directs it to run on. Very much *unlike* the microsoft patch. Also included in the original Schneier article is the fact that days after the patch was rushed out by microsoft, a new version of the program that not only was *not* stopped by the patch but worked *better* at removing the DRM (by expanding the versions of the DRM that it worked on) was out.

The end result being that all of the end users paid the risk, downtime, and bandwidth for about 3 days of someone else’s ’security’.

Glyn was kind enough to point at two links relating to this:

One from BoingBoing: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/08/25/windows_media_drm_cr.html
and one from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5294750.stm

The boingboing entry is spot on.

The BBC however is woefully inaccurate, and all the worse it’s inaccuracy leans heavily in the direction of the standard propaganda that is pushed by the music industry;

from the BBC article:
“It could spell problems for internet music shops, potentially
enabling users to download unlimited files.”

No, it doesn’t do that, for either interpretation of the word ‘unlimited’.

This horrible threat is nothing more than a program that removes the DRM from songs you have *already* downloaded. It can’t go out to the music industry’s sites and remove the DRM from them *before* you download them.

1. It has *no* effect on the amount of music you can download, that
remains exactly the same, so for the ‘as much as we want’
interpretation of ‘unlimited’ it’s completely incorrect.

2. It is only useable on files on your own computer, so while it
*does* remove the limitations on the files imposed by DRM, thereby
making them ‘unlimited’ by a different interpretation of the word, but this process happens post-download the original files that are downloaded are still just as limited.

And perhaps even more importantly each individual end user has to CHOOSE to put this program on their computer, and then it will only affect files that each person directs it to run on. Very much *unlike* the microsoft patch.

]]>