More Harassment from Content Protection

The county libraries have an extensive database of eBooks that are
available for download. There is a mechanism for licensing the downloads
for a 21 day use which is understandable. I was surprised to discover
that Microsoft file copy routines cannot copy a WMA Protected file from
one directory to another. Also, Nero crashes with a cryptic message if
you try to copy a directory that happens to contain one of these files.
I emphasize that these file transfers or back-ups have nothing to do
with whether or not one can listen to the audio books. This requires a
separate, Internet based licensing step.
This is another unfortunate example of content protection that does
little other than to harass the consumer. (I do know that it is easy to
by-pass "WMA Protect", but don't wish to do this).

That license restriction is added by the copyright owner, not the OS.

The OS merely enforces the restrictions.

So if you have an issue, contact the copyright owner.


"Robert Robinson" <robbiex@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ot2YmFxbHHA.4720@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> The county libraries have an extensive database of eBooks that are
> available for download. There is a mechanism for licensing the downloads
> for a 21 day use which is understandable. I was surprised to discover that
> Microsoft file copy routines cannot copy a WMA Protected file from one
> directory to another. Also, Nero crashes with a cryptic message if you try
> to copy a directory that happens to contain one of these files.
> I emphasize that these file transfers or back-ups have nothing to do with
> whether or not one can listen to the audio books. This requires a
> separate, Internet based licensing step.
> This is another unfortunate example of content protection that does little
> other than to harass the consumer. (I do know that it is easy to by-pass
> "WMA Protect", but don't wish to do this).

Hi Shane,

I am aware that there is more that enough blame to go around including
the RIAA and the MPAA which pressured congress for many years before
finally achieving passage of the DMCA (1998) which wiped out the
longstanding concept of Fair Use.
Microsoft has, however, been a great enabler of content management and
has patented a number of schemes for restricting data access. I don't
object to the protection of intellectual property, but I don't approve
of any scheme that results in unnecessary user harassment or cost,
degrades the quality of audio or video information, or hinders
legitimate operations. Vista is certainly a great offender in that it
incorporates many consumer unfriendly data restrictions.
It is interesting that even Bill Gates in a recent public presentation
expressed concern that content management is placing too many
restrictions on consumer data operations.
"WMA (Windows media audio) Protected" is especially bad because one
cannot even copy a file from one directory to another on the same computer.

Actually it can if the license permits it.

That's the whole point of what I am saying.

The only way to display that content is the comply with the restrictions, or
to illegally bypass those restrictions.

So your entire argument would be that the OS manufacturer should then
provide no support for playing that content right?

Then it would require a 3rd party framework to allow content playback.

We all know what happens with 3rd party content that modifies an OS itself
comes into play and it's not pretty.


"Robert Robinson" <robbiex@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:#IHFTWJcHHA.1300@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hi Shane,
>
> I am aware that there is more that enough blame to go around including the
> RIAA and the MPAA which pressured congress for many years before finally
> achieving passage of the DMCA (1998) which wiped out the longstanding
> concept of Fair Use.
> Microsoft has, however, been a great enabler of content management and has
> patented a number of schemes for restricting data access. I don't object
> to the protection of intellectual property, but I don't approve of any
> scheme that results in unnecessary user harassment or cost, degrades the
> quality of audio or video information, or hinders legitimate operations.
> Vista is certainly a great offender in that it incorporates many consumer
> unfriendly data restrictions.
> It is interesting that even Bill Gates in a recent public presentation
> expressed concern that content management is placing too many restrictions
> on consumer data operations.
> "WMA (Windows media audio) Protected" is especially bad because one cannot
> even copy a file from one directory to another on the same computer.

Another prime reason to stay with XP, I even went back to WMP 10
because WMP wouldn't let me play .WMV files in winamp (on XP.)
Last night a friend tolde me he couldn't play any mp3s on WMP11
that weren't licensed.

Can someone verify that? He's not very computer literate and I could
swear I could play unlicensed mp3s in WMP11 when I tried it for a day.

If you can't play unlicensed mp3s in Vista then I'll NEVER upgrade, that
would bullshit.

"Shane Nokes" <Morpheus_Phreak@nospam.ever.please.msn.com> wrote in message
news:eiuxly5cHHA.3632@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Actually it can if the license permits it.
>
> That's the whole point of what I am saying.
>
> The only way to display that content is the comply with the restrictions,
> or to illegally bypass those restrictions.
>
> So your entire argument would be that the OS manufacturer should then
> provide no support for playing that content right?
>
> Then it would require a 3rd party framework to allow content playback.
>
> We all know what happens with 3rd party content that modifies an OS itself
> comes into play and it's not pretty.
>
>
> "Robert Robinson" <robbiex@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:#IHFTWJcHHA.1300@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Hi Shane,
>>
>> I am aware that there is more that enough blame to go around including
>> the RIAA and the MPAA which pressured congress for many years before
>> finally achieving passage of the DMCA (1998) which wiped out the
>> longstanding concept of Fair Use.
>> Microsoft has, however, been a great enabler of content management and
>> has patented a number of schemes for restricting data access. I don't
>> object to the protection of intellectual property, but I don't approve of
>> any scheme that results in unnecessary user harassment or cost, degrades
>> the quality of audio or video information, or hinders legitimate
>> operations. Vista is certainly a great offender in that it incorporates
>> many consumer unfriendly data restrictions.
>> It is interesting that even Bill Gates in a recent public presentation
>> expressed concern that content management is placing too many
>> restrictions on consumer data operations.
>> "WMA (Windows media audio) Protected" is especially bad because one
>> cannot even copy a file from one directory to another on the same
>> computer.
>

Shane Nokes wrote:

> Actually it can if the license permits it.
>
> That's the whole point of what I am saying.
>
> The only way to display that content is the comply with the restrictions,
> or to illegally bypass those restrictions.

Well dunno about you but I rather illegally bypass the restrictions on my
*legally* purchased content before I'll deal with restrictions that don't
let me watch what I paid for because it doesn't like my friggin TV or
something else about my system.

As far as I am concerned all these companies can take their DRM bullshit and
shove it up their ass where it belongs.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

������出�日�ん�����
����忘れ�������ら

Stephan Rose wrote:
> Shane Nokes wrote:
>
>> Actually it can if the license permits it.
>>
>> That's the whole point of what I am saying.
>>
>> The only way to display that content is the comply with the restrictions,
>> or to illegally bypass those restrictions.
>
> Well dunno about you but I rather illegally bypass the restrictions on my
> *legally* purchased content before I'll deal with restrictions that don't
> let me watch what I paid for because it doesn't like my friggin TV or
> something else about my system.
>
> As far as I am concerned all these companies can take their DRM bullshit and
> shove it up their ass where it belongs.
>

There is nothing illegal about bypassing restrictions for personal,
non-commercial purposes if the restrictions infringe on your fair use
rights for the given product.


--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

Most recent idiotic quote added to KICK (Klassic Idiotic Caption Kooks):
"You can get dog shi* for free also!"

"Good poets borrow; great poets steal."
- T. S. Eliot