Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Universal to track DRM-free music online via watermarking
arstechnica.com — Universal's DRM-free music test will use watermarking technology in an effort to gauge whether or not selling DRM-free music online will increase piracy. Here's why the plan is all wet.
webtechgeek- 549 diggs
- digg it
- aservin, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3They will only get data about the piracy of no-DRM-online vs the rest.
Also, I imagine that you can re-rip the mp3 file and the watermark will go away. Or even, someone will come up with a technique to find the wathermark and erase it (I think that there are some software to clean iTunes free-DRM tracks).- wonderchemist, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4iTunes Plus tracks are not watermarked, but they do include metadata that has the purchaser's Apple ID.
- skoops, on 10/10/2007, -10/+15That's what a watermark is
- dt40, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Actually, what Apple does is not a watermark. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_watermark for some background on what a digital watermark is.
- grumpyrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Absolutely. Including data in the header of a file does not constitute watermarking. Watermarking usually involves some form of Steganography (combining a set of subtle and undetectable differences that carries some information). However, I have never seen Apple actually deny using these techniques with iTunes. They merely confirm they include the Apple ID in the header. It may still be possible to identify who owns the track even if you remove this ID. (You would need to do a hash over two distinctly sourced copies of the file excluding the header to tell).
- grumpyrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Absolutely. Including data in the header of a file does not constitute watermarking. Watermarking usually involves some form of Steganography (combining a set of subtle and undetectable differences that carries some information). However, I have never seen Apple actually deny using these techniques with iTunes. They merely confirm they include the Apple ID in the header. It may still be possible to identify who owns the track even if you remove this ID. (You would need to do a hash over two distinctly sourced copies of the file excluding the header to tell).
- Shorties, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You didn't read the article did you... They said it will be in the song inaudibly, my guess is that it will either be in a range that humans can't hear or it will somehow be laced in the digital code of the song.
- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Limit to the number of reply levels? I can't reply to Shorties...
It's unlikely that the watermark will be in an inaudible frequency range. First of all, most audio files contain just a high enough sampling frequency to contain up to the upper-limit of human hearing, and no more. Additionally, watermarking is designed so that simple filtering cannot eliminate it; putting in in an inaudible range (either high or low) could easily be removed without affecting audio quality by a sharp hi-pass or low-pass filter.
- dt40, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Actually, what Apple does is not a watermark. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_watermark for some background on what a digital watermark is.
- skoops, on 10/10/2007, -10/+15That's what a watermark is
- mercurysquad, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"Also, I imagine that you can re-rip the mp3 file and the watermark will go away. Or even, someone will come up with a technique to find the wathermark and erase it"
Actually no. I assume they will use the current state-of-the-art watermarking based on spread-spectrum techniques. These are robust against almost any kind of processing, so much that removing the watermark will entail mutilating the audio beyond recognition (more or less). So it's not really trivial to rip the watermark since it's not based on any programming hacks, but more on perception and DSP theory. Look on Google Scholar or CiteSeer for papers about this. E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_spectrum or http://mack.ittc.ku.edu/cox95secure.html- rnewson, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0Download two copies, to two different accounts, the difference is the watermark. Randomize those bits.
- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Watermarking will be song-specific, not purchaser-specific. The only way to do what you are proposing is to have a non-watermarked version of the song; but then you don't need to remove the watermark in the first place. Also the other version will likely be ripped differently, thus will have plenty of differing bits.
- rnewson, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0Download two copies, to two different accounts, the difference is the watermark. Randomize those bits.
- wonderchemist, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4iTunes Plus tracks are not watermarked, but they do include metadata that has the purchaser's Apple ID.
- GnuTzu, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Does this mean they'll be able to calculate damages against the original purchaser based upon the number of copies that have spread though the wild?
I assume that each copy sold will have a unique watermark, and they'll be able to track an illegally shared copy back to the original purchaser and that they may attempt to estimate how many illegal copies were made from a single purchase.- mercurysquad, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I think it's a bit unfair to base the original buyer's liability on the total number of leaked copies. The original buyer might have given it to only 2 of his friends which he might think of as fair use. These 2 might pass it on to another 2 people each, and then it grows exponentially. It is fairer to argue that each person in the 'chain' is only responsible for the number of direct copies he made and transmitted. In which case, Universal would rather give up than try to collect damages from each of the thousands of people in the entire chain (or should I say, tree).
- mthoringen, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4How the *&#% is giving a copied song to 2 friends fair use?
- mercurysquad, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2To augment the above, I would go so far as saying that the original buyer should not be held responsible for any damages at all, since he paid for the song and should be allowed to share it with a couple of people under fair use. However, his friends would be liable for damages since they did not pay for the song and still passed it on.
- nightstrm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8When did fair use extend to giving your friends copies of things they didn't pay for? Fair use is for your own personal use, not the use by your friends.
- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5RTFA; watermarks will be unique to each song, not to each purchase. Doing the latter would require a large change in online stores' structures, something that many of them are not willing to do for a trial-run of this selling model.
- GnuTzu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And, so watermarking each purchase might be on their wish list, but won't be possible until they can control all of the on line stores.
- Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2not to mention that the original buyer, may not have intentionally shared the song at all. Music is frequently stored on portable devices, which can sometimes be lost. Should someone be sued because he lost his iPod?
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, what they should do is get a police report which instantly removes their liability if the media on their ipod ends up in the wild.
- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So what's to stop everyone from just doing that then?
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, what they should do is get a police report which instantly removes their liability if the media on their ipod ends up in the wild.
- CosmicJustice, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Why don't you read the ***** article before you comment?????
- GnuTzu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The article states that it didn't have all the details. Excuse me for speculating beyond what the article could provide.
- mercurysquad, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I think it's a bit unfair to base the original buyer's liability on the total number of leaked copies. The original buyer might have given it to only 2 of his friends which he might think of as fair use. These 2 might pass it on to another 2 people each, and then it grows exponentially. It is fairer to argue that each person in the 'chain' is only responsible for the number of direct copies he made and transmitted. In which case, Universal would rather give up than try to collect damages from each of the thousands of people in the entire chain (or should I say, tree).
- Jaymoon, on 10/10/2007, -7/+34This is what they should have done all along.
You may not like me for saying it, but if they would have simply placed watermarks in songs without DRM, maybe record labels and the RIAA wouldn't have such a bad reputation they have today.
The idea behind it is simple. Say John buys this DRM-free song with a watermark in it. He can listen to it through whatever means he chooses (MP3 Player, his 5 computers throughout the house, etc.). He can also send it to his friend Bob who can play it like any other normal song. If Universal happens to find that 50,000 copies of John's watermarked song are floating around the net, then they can go after John to see how that happened.
If the songs were tracked back to the consumer... The consumer might think twice about just "giving them away" to friends and/or strangers.- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Except watermarks will be unique to the song and not the purchaser. So no dice. Yet.
- Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10What happens when the songs are lost? If I loose my iPod and the music on it ends up on the net should i be liable?
- bmwboy2844, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, but, seriously, what are the odds that your iPod will be lost, and the person rips the songs, watermark intact, and shares them on (insert p2p network name here)?
Slim. Very, very slim. In my opinion the pros outweigh the cons.- tokabowla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Most thieving types wouldn't know how to get songs OFF, as oppose to ON an IPod. But if they knew how, putting them in his shared music folder, then sharing them P2P would be simple. Me thinks in court, there would have to be some substantial proof of a malicious attempt to distribute the file. the plausibility of a watermarked MP3 being stolen, then shared P2P are just too high.
- niallabrown, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Are you crazy? Of course that can and will happen often to many many people. What pros by the way? That people can be sued left right and center. I don't pirate music, but ill be dammed if I'm going to pay because someone steals my MP3 Player/key drive. Not to mention peope would boycot like crazy in fear of this risk alone.
- mthoringen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Your liability is higher if you don't know how to spell "lose" or capitalize "I".
- niallabrown, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I dislike it when people correct the spelling. You my friend are very lame.
- bmwboy2844, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, but, seriously, what are the odds that your iPod will be lost, and the person rips the songs, watermark intact, and shares them on (insert p2p network name here)?
- Useight, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The problem with something like this is, if John Doe gives an illegal copy to his friend Joe Schmoe, and then Joe Schmoe spreads it on a P2P network to 50,000 people, you'd want John to be liable for only 1 person, not 50,000.
- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's not the RIAA's current philosophy; hence why the suits that actually go to court cowever many ***** of dollars
- Genma, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1this is not drm free. just a pointless pr stunt to test a new form of drm.
- RamboJesus, on 10/10/2007, -9/+7Well if they are tracking me, then it's not really DRM free then.
- KingPhallus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Nah, they removed the DRM and replaced it with spyware.
- kazamx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1its only spyware if you share it.
- RidesAPaleHorse, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yes, ti is still DRM-Free. There is no DRM to restrict the devices on which you can play your purchased song, there's no authentication that has to happen.
The watermarking simply shows who purchased a particular copy.- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not exactly, the watermark shows where the song came from. If you and I buy the same song, it will have the same watermark (RTFA, it's there)
- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2They're not tracking you. RTFA.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No No No. The DRM is still present in a way. But the Encryption is what is gone.
DRM in the form of a watermark. No Encryption.
Edit: Oh yeah and they're just tracking the songs in this round... next step is customer specific watermarks.
- KingPhallus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Nah, they removed the DRM and replaced it with spyware.
- FrugalFreak, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6sounds like they are looking for new "data" to back up piracy claims. Thus I will avoid anything "Universal" labeled, so not to not give them their wishes. They are still hoping to end piracy and convert back to legacy business methods and think they can do so through maneuvering congress, lawsuits, other methods.
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Legacy business methods.... of charging money for a product. That's cute. : )
- jmnormand, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3just another instance of how universal seems to be creating a bias towards failure in their "test" of drm free music
- nightstrm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1This is one of the reasons they didn't start with iTunes... they feel (and maybe rightly so, who knows) that the second they remove DRM, there will be a flood of these tracks available online through various means. They'll compile this data, and use it as their justification for not expanding the test.
- rnewson, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0Detecting and removing a watermark is trivial.
Download two copies, to two different accounts, the difference is the watermark. Randomize those bits.- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Again, no. Just like your comment above which has the same text, no. RTFA. Watermarks will be implemented per-song, not per-purchase or per-buyer. You download two copies from the same source and the difference will be a string of 0s.
- shinelikeitdoes, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9this is actually totally fair. anyone who is opposed to this approach now is basically a pirate anyway. there is no legitimate argument against this watermarking unless it degrades the music quality.
- Dangerman, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5The desire to not have personally identifying information attached to my purchases does not make me a pirate it makes me a privacy advocate. You can do much more with this data than track piracy. Think about it.
- almalax19, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1PIRATE!!!
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No Dangerman, you can't. You're paranoid.
- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Did noone RTFA?? So many uninformed comments. The watermarks ARE NOT identifiable to the purchaser. That's not to say they won't do it in the future; in fact R'ing TFA shows that they clearly thought about it. But the watermarks are PER SONG, not per user.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Guys he's not talking about these watermarks.
If this strategy catches on, the plan is to add customer info into unique watermarks.
This is implied in the article.
The article says they aren't adding in all the extra data because it's just a 6 month test.
So our immediate parent comment is very valid.
- Dangerman, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5The desire to not have personally identifying information attached to my purchases does not make me a pirate it makes me a privacy advocate. You can do much more with this data than track piracy. Think about it.
- superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Meanwhile the execs at EMI continue to sleep on sacks stuffed with $1000 bills thanks to iTunes+.
I don't think the watermark test is a bad idea, I just this the results are obvious and the sample size they are trying to measure is way too small. Not being on iTunes what are the odds they get even one hit as to one of the ten tracks people actually bother to buy? And if selling DRm free music didn't work why does EMI keep expanding the iTunes+ catalog, including John F'ing Lennon songs? - geekee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What's amusing about the comments is that everyone already knows the answer to the experiment, and are going but, but, but already. Some are even criticizing Universal for even trying the experiment. CD's are dying. There's no point in using the argument that CDs are an easy source of piracy for future decisions.
- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Since so many people missed this point (see above) I think it warrants its own root comment--watermarks will be song-specific, not purchase-specific. FTFA: "to include, say, information about the purchaser [...] is too cumbersome for the trial, as it would require significant retooling of participating online music stores."
So no, they aren't going to be able to track the original purchaser of illegally copied content. At least not with this scheme; but it's clear that they've thought of the possibility. So that may be the next step; but it is not the current one.- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"One source close to a digital music store told me that this is the best Universal can do, ... making the watermark more specific... information about the purchaser ... is too cumbersome for the trial..."
All they did was replace the encryption with a method of tracking the files.
Once they add personal information into the watermarks we're back to square one.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"One source close to a digital music store told me that this is the best Universal can do, ... making the watermark more specific... information about the purchaser ... is too cumbersome for the trial..."
- Emachine, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Can it really be too hard to work around the watermark? Play the file on a software music player, capture the output. (some players make it really easy) Share the new file with your friends.
- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Current watermarking technology is designed so that said methods do not eliminate the watermark. It's in the audio itself, but imperceivably so. Even downsampling (to a limit, I imagine) won't eliminate the watermark.
as an example, look at http://www.cmlab.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~dynamic/AWM/index.html
"The embedded watermark is robust to common audio signal manipulations, such as MP3 compression, time shifting, cropping, time scaling, D/A A/D conversion, insertion, deletion, re-sampling, re-quantization and filtering." - MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Too easy.
The guaranteed method of removing the watermark is to merge two copies of the song.
Either two songs with different watermarks or perhaps the same with slightly different time shifts.
And the system comes crashing down. It took me all of 2 minutes to come up with a solution.
Or if the watermark is inaudible... then a scrambler could also be inaudible.- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My guess is that a scrambler would have to be audible before it could make the SNR too low to read the watermark.
Ans since the song only has one original source, if you had two *different* versions of the song, just use the one without the Universal watermark. You're not going to find two different versions of the same recording with the same watermark.
Good thoughts, but I suspect it may take more than 2 minutes to counter the research of an entire field / subset of DSP.
- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My guess is that a scrambler would have to be audible before it could make the SNR too low to read the watermark.
- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Current watermarking technology is designed so that said methods do not eliminate the watermark. It's in the audio itself, but imperceivably so. Even downsampling (to a limit, I imagine) won't eliminate the watermark.
- truegodofwar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Um, couldn't you just take your DRM free music and re-encode it with a different codec at a different bit-rate?
- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not if they're using any form of modern watermarking technology, which I guarentee you they are.
http://www.cmlab.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~dynamic/AWM/index.html
"The embedded watermark is robust to common audio signal manipulations, such as MP3 compression, time shifting, cropping, time scaling, D/A A/D conversion, insertion, deletion, re-sampling, re-quantization and filtering."
- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not if they're using any form of modern watermarking technology, which I guarentee you they are.
- dogel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Prediction: By the end of the trial, Universal will publish their findings which will justify their putting DRM's on their *****. It doesn't matter if their findings are even legitimate, or even if they actually looked for their watermarked songs, all that matters is the publicity the story will receive when they have their 'hard' proof that DRM-free music is 'hurting' the music industry. It doesn't matter if someone exposes their results as false, that story won't be nearly as big and hardly anyone will notice. Soon after their justification, DRM's will be even more strict. Hopefully I'm wrong.
- BobbyMC, on 07/21/2008, -0/+3How about we ask ourselves why they think piracy works like a "flood" anyway. All piracy, be that BT or Gnutella based clients, stems from very few sources. It only takes 1 piece of data.
Think about a Gnutella based client. Even though you will on average find many more sources independent of each other than on BT, in the big picture it is still a very small number of sources.
They're basically thinking to themselves that music spreads because every single person who has access to a non DRM track immediately throws it on some file sharing network. They seem to think that there need to be lots and lots of different people ripping CDs or de-RMing files for their precious music to spread. That is way off base, and anyone who has used any form of file sharing program for more than 5 seconds knows that no amount of DRM, high or low, will ever make a difference in the way it all works. - Yage2006, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Real pirates no where to get the stuff before it even is available on those online stores anyway .
So why bother ? - mfalkon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2cry me a ***** river
- corneliusJones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2if everybody in the whole music pirating community just DOES NOT share these songs, we can "prove" that the claims of piracy are grossly over stated! think about it...what if universal wakes up and finds NO copies of this out there?
- niick, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2A watermark is still DRM, so that should read:
Universal to track DRM-free music online via DRM
This is simply Orwellian language.- morchibby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0My thoughts exactly.
- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1At least it doesn't restrict where/how you can play the song.
- tokabowla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0But it will lead to such things.
- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1We already have such things (current DRM technology). This is a response to broad customer dissatisfaction because of it. So no, I don't believe it will lead to such things, it's a way of trying to keep what they want while getting rid of such things.
- tokabowla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0But it will lead to such things.
- smellinator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5If you are concerned that your music may have a watermark in it, send it to me, and I'll scan it and let you know.
- HanSolo69, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1isn't watermarking a form of DRM?
- Fracture98, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not exactly. It does lean towards allowing your fair use rights (make any personal copies you like), while letting them ensure you're complying with real copyright laws.
It does still get you in trouble if you lone a single copy to a friend and they sell it to Chinese DVD duplicators, though ;-)
Just being Devil's advocate. - MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It is. Don't listen to the guy above. LOL.
Watermarks are a form of DRM!
It's the encryption that has been removed. (or not applied)
When they start adding customer info into the watermarks, and suing people, this will become more evident.- r3zonance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3MacSuxWindozSux, you are wrong. Digital Rights Management is about the control and restriction of use of content.
A watermark does not stop you from copying or re-distributing a file, in most people that would be their conscience.
- r3zonance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3MacSuxWindozSux, you are wrong. Digital Rights Management is about the control and restriction of use of content.
- Fracture98, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not exactly. It does lean towards allowing your fair use rights (make any personal copies you like), while letting them ensure you're complying with real copyright laws.
- m00nstone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4People are way off thinking that DRM is on it's way out. The relative success of itunes and Xbox 360 Live are proof that people will pay the price for DRM'd digital distribution.
In the near future all digital content will only be available from DRM controlled digital distribution. And these services will enjoy the same success as both the cd and dvd. - biggerdigger69, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0So when GeekSquad steals all of your "DRM free" MP3s, it's your fault if they get out into the wild. Yeah, great idea.
Doesn't matter anyway. It'll take about 10 minutes for someone to write a util to strip the watermark out.- Shorties, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2RTFA
- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It will be much easier to find a leaked DRM-free copy from the studio than to strip the watermark. Digital watermarking technology these days is by no means trivial.
- Shorties, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3To me this is a good thing, it allows the music industry to feel safe about their music and you to have all the rights you should with the music. Those of you against DRM are never going to get exactly what you want, you have to compromise with the music industry, and this sounds like a good compromise to me. Now we need it on Movies and TV shows so that I can burn them to DVD's and watch them on my TV. (Without having to play them off my iPod onto my TV)
- tokabowla, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1IF ONE PERSON SHARES THE WATERMARKED FILE IT'S USELESS! Ya bid dummy!
- rxbudian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1actually they neglected to put into account the natural human behaviour: people will do what is allowed or can be done. If songs can be copied, people will automatically copy; if there's no fence in the yard, people will just walk on the yard if they have reason/interest to do so.
- my10cent, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Let's FREE all music in the world, then the bands can have donation buttons on their websites, and the RIAA would be without a job.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Without Jobs.
Catch the double meaning.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Without Jobs.
- prax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4But we all complain that we pirate because we want DRM-free music. So when we have DRM-free music... why then will you pirate? If music was free, who'd publish music? The musicians gotta eat too. Sure, the publishers make 98% of the money.. but 2% of nothing ain't gonna pay the bills.
- r3zonance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well this is turning into the exact same debate over the DRM-free music on iTunes.
It would appear that 90+% of digg don't want DRM-free music, they just want free music that they can give away to anyone.
That's not how it works, wake up and smell the coffee. Generally (and don't even think about mentioning open source software, that's why I said generally) if you want something you have to pay for it.
That's life!!! - mookieXL, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Calling all DSP geeks:
Any ways to jam it without affecting sound?
Edit: forget it, it's not out yet :)- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There probably is; just no way to test it without access to their methods.
- astrotrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I look at this way, I purchased the song, its mine to do what I want with it, (burn it, put it on my MP3 player, etc), I do not want any strings attached to it. Its like buying a car at a real low price (yeah we're using that metaphor again), and then having the dealer attach a homing device into it, and find out where your driving.
This is just another form of DRM... and Universal might as well keep their music, because once this is out, nobody will be buying their music and their ways of deceiving the public of "Oh yes, we're DRM free" as they
turn for a quick second and give that wink of evil doing at the RIAA who is smiling right in back of them. - niallabrown, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Watermarking is no better than DRM (I'm aware they are claiming this is just temporary, but I doubt that). It's amazing how even with all the $%@# these companies try to pull, idiots still buy from them. This is coming from someone who legally purchases all his music.
- dadofbrook, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11. Not by cracking DRM control like Hymn, there are mainly other two methods to bypass the DRM control for protected music.
The first method is to burn a copy to an audio CD and then rip/encode it. Some software products take a smarter method which allows user to burn music to a Virtual CD-RW disc and then automatically rip/encode the music stored on the Virtual CD-R. This makes the whole conversion process automatically and faster. NoteBurner (www.noteburner.com) is the typical example which uses this Virtual CD-RW drive method.
The second method is to use a recording software and sound card. TuneBite is one of the most popular software.
2. Clever method to remove the watermark on the music will be soon available.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by