«

richard <> wrote in
news::

> When attempting to play a couple of mp3's, regardless of media player,
> I'm told I need a frickin license.

I've never run into DRM protected MP3s and don't even know how they could
be encoded. I'll bet they were downloaded from some pay music service.

Using WMP to play music files is a mistake. It has DRM built into it. I use
Winamp.

richard <> wrote:

>I obtained these files from usenet newsgroups. The reading I've done
>suggests that because the file has no "tag" it won't play.
>But that isn't true in all cases. I think it depends largely on how
>the DRM interprets the info. The point to all of this is that no
>license can be obtained from the site as given.

Drop them on VLC see what happens
http://www.videolan.org/

If they won't play you need to find what DRM was used, then search for
for a hack, like fairuse4wm.exe
--

Sgt Manhood is on the case
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story...1-3462,00.html

richard <> wrote in
news:

> On 18 Jan 2008 00:46:33 GMT, thanatoid
> <> wrote:
>
>>richard <> wrote in
>>news: m:
>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:35:43 +0000, Whiskers
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2008-01-17, richard <> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> When attempting to play a couple of mp3's, regardless
>>>>> of media player, I'm told I need a frickin license.
>>>>> You are sent to musicnet.com.
>>>>> Can anyone find a link to this license requirement
>>>>> thing? I couldn't.
>>>>> Not one shred of evidence about a license other than
>>>>> this one little page.
>>>>> Who the hell are they and what authority do they have
>>>>> to tell me/you, we can't enjoy music without their
>>>>> permission?
>>>>
>>>>Presumably they, or clients of theirs, own the
>>>>reproduction rights to whatever it is you've acquired
>>>>copies of and they don't want people without a licence to
>>>>have access - and they apparently have the means to
>>>>enforce that wish on the likes of you. So get a licence
>>>>or live without what isn't yours. That's life.
>>>>
>>>>I doubt if the licence is for fricking, by the way ...
>>>
>>> How do they know it isn't mine legally? So I purchased
>>> the song in a store or maybe a friend gave me a copy of
>>> his old 45's and I ripped them to mp3.
>>>
>>> This only started TODAY. From what I've been reading,
>>> Microsoft is apparently the culprit. When you click open
>>> a song, regardless of media, some program checks for the
>>> license. If it isn't there, or the program's encryption
>>> feels one is needed, you get told. Problem is, you never
>>> get the license.
>>>
>>> According to M$, you can turn off this license checking
>>> in wmp. But when you do, you lose your right to burn
>>> anything. Let alone play it.
>>>
>>> Then what if I don't want wmp? No can do. I don't have
>>> the right to uninstall it. I just want to listen to MY
>>> damn music when I want to.
>>
>>DRM was one of the main (if not THE main) reasons Vista was
>>released. It has nothing else in it that XP doesn't except
>>a bunch of eye candy and insane system requirements
>>(another advantage for everyone except the end user).
>>
>>You should upgrade to 98SE and become free. Or XP and at
>>least reduce the quantity of chains somewhat.
>>
>>Anyway... I see you are on real Usenet. Have you ever
>>noticed newsgroups with "sounds.mp3" (and lossless, etc.)
>>in the name? Take a look. No DRM in that world. But that
>>world will not be around for VERY much longer so get what
>>you want while you can.
>>
>>Slightly related - I do not have any DRM mp3'S, but has
>>anyone converted a DRM-****ed mp3 file to WAV and then back
>>to mp3 (or ogg or whatever)? I would think IF the file
>>allows itself to be converted , then the DRM will
>>disappear. I would also /think/ that programs like mptrim
>>would remove the drm ****.
>>
>>(Needless to say, use a neutral program for the
>>conversions. I don't even know IF WMP can do any
>>conversions, and if it can, I wouldn't trust it with the
>>quality. After all, there's ONLY Windows Media in the MS
>>world, and they're counting on everyone buying into that -
>>and being fairly successful.)
>>
>>ANyway, I don't know for sure. Fortunately, it is of no
>>direct concern to me. So just an idea, if someone want to
>>try - or HAS tried it.
>
> I obtained these files from usenet newsgroups.

I have seen "iTunes" (a strong follower of DRM) and such at the
start of some files. I do not own any portable music devices. I
used a cassette Walkman all through the 80's. I don't like to
leave the house much anymore. I own two DVD players which I
bought only to play mp3's. They (and both my computers) play
everything I have DL'd perfectly well. I use mptrim which
removes all tags. Makes no difference except slightly smaller,
cleaner, and volume normalized etc. Perhaps the DRM tags only
work when you want to use iPods and such.

DL mptrim (free unless you want "PRO") and try it and post what
the results were.

Also, not ALL posts to Usenet are good. They almost all used to
be the ripper's own work (NMR indicating relatively rare cases
of re-posts or otherwise) but now a lot seems to come from the
web. But good posters have longevity and are easily recognized,
as are people who can't post at all or post crap.

> The reading
> I've done suggests that because the file has no "tag" it
> won't play. But that isn't true in all cases. I think it
> depends largely on how the DRM interprets the info. The
> point to all of this is that no license can be obtained
> from the site as given.

Well, it used to be that the customer came first. Now the
customer is the LAST concern of any empire's, as Vista amply
proves. In most cases, they know we have no alternatives (or are
working hard on eliminating them from the face of the Earth) so
why SHOULD they care?

Also, serious efforts are apparently starting/about to start to
kill Usenet music/movie posts. The only reason it took so long
is because most people have no idea that the Usenet exists.
Also, while finding UL's is not that hard, getting /all/ the
DL's will be impossible.

> One person suggested obtaining a license from the msn music
> store. But even that came up empty. It sounds to me like
> the RIAA paid M$ big bucks to implement their software to
> keep down illegal filesharing.

No offense PLEASE, but since I have NEVER used this phrase
before in my life, just for fun, allow me...

"No ****, Sherlock".

MS is VERY happy to help "certain" organizations. The "NSA key"
thing of a few years ago was NEVER resolved/explained, at least
not to many people's satisfaction. And the new features of Vista
are 50% DRM and 50% spyware.

--
Any mental activity is easy if it need not be subjected to
reality.

"richard" wrote in message
news:...
>
> When attempting to play a couple of mp3's, regardless of media
> player,
> I'm told I need a frickin license.
> You are sent to musicnet.com.
> Can anyone find a link to this license requirement thing?
> I couldn't.
> Not one shred of evidence about a license other than this one little
> page.
> Who the hell are they and what authority do they have to tell
> me/you,
> we can't enjoy music without their permission?
>
>


Aw, got your hand slapped for stealing. Some musicians actually
figure that if you want to hear their stuff then you have to pay for
it. So what do you for a career where you let everyone steal your
value? Or don't you work yet? Maybe the site where you got the .mp3
file will let you buy it so you can then get the license.

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:02:19 -0600, "VanguardLH"
<> wrote:

>"richard" wrote in message
>news:.. .
>>
>> When attempting to play a couple of mp3's, regardless of media
>> player,
>> I'm told I need a frickin license.
>> You are sent to musicnet.com.
>> Can anyone find a link to this license requirement thing?
>> I couldn't.
>> Not one shred of evidence about a license other than this one little
>> page.
>> Who the hell are they and what authority do they have to tell
>> me/you,
>> we can't enjoy music without their permission?
>>
>>
>
>
>Aw, got your hand slapped for stealing. Some musicians actually
>figure that if you want to hear their stuff then you have to pay for
>it. So what do you for a career where you let everyone steal your
>value? Or don't you work yet? Maybe the site where you got the .mp3
>file will let you buy it so you can then get the license.

Under the "Fair Use" doctrine of the copyright laws, I don't need
THEIR permission. They do not have the legal right to limit the number
of uses.

It works this way, an artist records music. A publisher makes copies
and sells it to a vendor. At this point in time, the artist has
already made his money. So has the publisher. Since the RIAA has
gotten into this kick about file sharing, the RIAA is trying to
manipulate how we, the consumer, can enjoy that music. Microsoft is
merely joining the bandwagon and helping them make more money. Neither
the RIAA nor Microsoft has any legal standing in the copyright
process.

So if you don't want to mess around with the issue, don't use windows
media player format to record with. Ahhh but that is precisely what
the vendors do because the RIAA insists they do or they can't sell the
music. If someone were to file a lawsuit on this issue, it will be an
interesting case for sure.

richard wrote:

> It works this way, an artist records music. A publisher makes copies
> and sells it to a vendor. At this point in time, the artist has
> already made his money. So has the publisher. ...

Seems you need to learn more about how the music industry works. Are you
suggesting that <pick an artist> records a song/album, and immediately
receives a million bucks? And nothing ever after that?

You've never heard of royalties, I suspect.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:19:13 GMT, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<> wrote:

>richard wrote:
>
>> It works this way, an artist records music. A publisher makes copies
>> and sells it to a vendor. At this point in time, the artist has
>> already made his money. So has the publisher. ...
>
>Seems you need to learn more about how the music industry works. Are you
>suggesting that <pick an artist> records a song/album, and immediately
>receives a million bucks? And nothing ever after that?
>
>You've never heard of royalties, I suspect.

Royalties is not the issue, which I do know about.
The issue is the copyright license and who controls it.
Microsoft says, in part, that because you are using their product,
they can deny you YOUR rights simply because no license was detected.

The question is, who exactly has the legal authority to issue this
license? Not Microsoft. The only possible source of the license is the
publisher. But I do not believe they can limit the use to a set number
of times that is not reasonable. I would be happy with a 3 year limit
rather than 10 times. I'll bet that nowhere on any of these pay sites
do they mention how many times you can use it, except maybe in some
really fine print somewhere.

Let's say I downloaded a Mozart tune. I come to find out there's a
license attached to it. Why? Because microsoft says it has to be
there. Sorry. But works authored before the office opened for business
do not fall under copyright laws. Public domain.

Or maybe I wrote something, performed it, recorded it, and lo and
behold, microsoft insists I must have a license. Bullshit.

I for one, am totally dropping windows media player all together and
not bothering to have any files with the wma extension tagged on it.
Ever again.

richard wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>richard wrote:
>>> It works this way, an artist records music. A publisher makes copies
>>> and sells it to a vendor. At this point in time, the artist has
>>> already made his money. So has the publisher. ...
>>
>> Seems you need to learn more about how the music industry works. Are
>> you suggesting that <pick an artist> records a song/album, and
>> immediately receives a million bucks? And nothing ever after that?
>>
>> You've never heard of royalties, I suspect.
>
> Royalties is not the issue, which I do know about. The issue is the
> copyright license and who controls it. Microsoft says, in part, that
> because you are using their product, they can deny you YOUR rights
> simply because no license was detected.

Mircosoft does not stop me from playing mp3s. Oh wait, I don't use Vista
with DRM.

> The question is, who exactly has the legal authority to issue this
> license? Not Microsoft. The only possible source of the license is
> the publisher.

Hey, you got that one right.

> But I do not believe they can limit the use to a set number of times
> that is not reasonable. I would be happy with a 3 year limit rather
> than 10 times. I'll bet that nowhere on any of these pay sites do
> they mention how many times you can use it, except maybe in some
> really fine print somewhere.

Heh, if you wanna download music, you gotta read it. Else, don't
complain about it later.

> Let's say I downloaded a Mozart tune. I come to find out there's a
> license attached to it. Why? Because microsoft says it has to be
> there. Sorry. But works authored before the office opened for
> business do not fall under copyright laws. Public domain.

If the recording itself was *made* by Mozart, it is public domain. I
doubt of Mozart published anything himself after 1922. If the recording
is of a Mozart work by a current artist/orchestra/arrangement, this is
new, and therefore not in public domain.

Microsoft does not say it needs a license, the publisher does and
Microsoft complies.

> Or maybe I wrote something, performed it, recorded it, and lo and
> behold, microsoft insists I must have a license. Bullshit.

Only if you want it to. You would be perfectly free to give it away,
free of charge.

> I for one, am totally dropping windows media player all together and
> not bothering to have any files with the wma extension tagged on it.
> Ever again.

Well, get on it then.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:23:05 -0500, richard <>
wrote:

>The question is, who exactly has the legal authority to issue this
>license? Not Microsoft. The only possible source of the license is the
>publisher. But I do not believe they can limit the use to a set number
>of times that is not reasonable.

I do not believe that if there's no other cars on the freeway that
there should be a speed limit. But someone begs to differ.

>Or maybe I wrote something, performed it, recorded it, and lo and
>behold, microsoft insists I must have a license. Bullshit.

If you performed it, recorded it and made the MP3, there would be no
license issues with that file.

>I for one, am totally dropping windows media player all together and
>not bothering to have any files with the wma extension tagged on it.
>Ever again.

Great!
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.

In article <>, richard
<> wrote:

> Under the "Fair Use" doctrine of the copyright laws, I don't need
> THEIR permission.
BULL. If you check, that applies only if you do the FIRST part, which
is usually to actually purchase the item. If you do something else,
like a rental or limited-use price, then you can't apply that rule.

> They do not have the legal right to limit the number
> of uses.
They do if you acquire it under different conditions.

> It works this way, an artist records music. A publisher makes copies
> and sells it to a vendor. At this point in time, the artist has
> already made his money. So has the publisher.
Wrong; the artist and publisher both make money based on how many
copies are _eventually_ sold. You seem to be assuming the purchase
happens only once, and all sales are then complete.
If the people who want that music do not buy it (if one person buys it
but shares it with twenty or a thousand others and they would then bot
buy it) then they make fewer sales. Isn't that clear?

> Neither
> the RIAA nor Microsoft has any legal standing in the copyright
> process.
The RIAA is a group whose members have that specific standing.
The RIAA is an "association," they speak as a group through it.

> So if you don't want to mess around with the issue, don't use windows
> media player format to record with. Ahhh but that is precisely what
> the vendors do because the RIAA insists they do or they can't sell the
> music.
The vendors use WMA format (among others) IF THEY WANT THAT PROTECTION.
It isn't to avoid selling the music; it is the method they use
specifically to sell the music but prevent you from giving it to
others.

If you were just trying to purchase the music, you wouldn't have a
problem. It only comes up if you try to use music you DID NOT pay for.

> If someone were to file a lawsuit on this issue, it will be an
> interesting case for sure.
If? Geez, Richard, where have you been for six years?