Printable View
Is it possible to remove a licence on an mp3 file? i downloaded music from my rhapsody and i uploaded it to multiply.com. when i re-downloaded it the licence is still attached to the file and i want to burn it to a cd. is there any way to remove the licence on it? just curious...thanks for reading! :)
Yep. There is a way that werkz 100% of the time.
What's that?
Buy the song.
Yep... go buy the CD! You wont need to burn one then! ;)
-Deeboe
Is this a security site?
Maybe I should look at the front page more often when logging in, perhaps I'm missing something.
W E L C O M E--------T O--------A O
--------------->> H A C K E R S--------I N S I D E <<-------------------
<blink> <blink> <blink> <blink> <blink> <blink> <blink>
xthisxisxmex
Let me give you a tip....
Dont ask how to bypass liccensing....that is an illegal activity and is not tolerated here at AO
You will just get negged
MLF
not tolerated but very often praticed....
some days i really wonder how many people say dont download, then minimze the window and open up limewire...
at any rate... dont download... its illegal
xthisxisxmex:
Nothing beats getting the original CD (and if you have the program [there are plenty out there in the www], you can covert the wav files into MP3). If you have a CD burner, say NERO, you can just write the files into a CD--but use the DATA format instead of music CD so that the files are converted into the MP3 format.
I have plenty of issues against downloading MP3s particularly with such peer-to-peer networks as Kazaa due to the preponderance of spyware, malware and trojans that piggyback with the downloads and encroach on the computer system itself. My sister even tipped me off of one site that deliberately asks the user to allow the installation of "WhenU" malware/spyware when you download a MP3 file (and there are others that go by that method as well when it comes to downloadable games).
Additional caution, however, should be exercised with regard to original CDs having rootkits (this has been discussed in older threads here in AO particularly with Sony CDs).
There is no such thing as free MP3; there's always a catch and, whether they are benign or not, the fact is the individual downloading the so-called free MP3 has to give something back.
... and we are not yet dealing with the ethical issues here of the intellectual property rights!
:p
-Goitz
Limewire?! OMG, Kazaa? Evil Kazaa? You'd be crazy to run anything other than torrents. :)
Fwiw, downloading via BitTorrent, Kazaa, or Limewire is, in and of itself, hardly illegal. Downloading SOME copyrighted material, now that's a different story. But there's a lot of legit apps and iso's out there available via filesharing. And plenty of gray area.
Hollywood will never have to worry about me infringing on their intellectual property rights. That's a bit of an oxymoron, isn't it? Intellectual property, and Hollywood? Now PBS and BBC, they better watch out.
;)
Also.. remember when downloading music.. Download it in a good free, and preferrably lossless format..
That way the music lasts..
I will only go and buy new CDs from big firms as soon as they replaces my scratched CD's for material price and posting and packaging.. let's say.. 5 dollars....
Or if someone brings out a good CD.... Hey that sounds good...
*the_JinX is off to buy some good CDs at http://www.c64audio.com/
Hi Liz,
Please forgive my ignorance:
So you actually PAID for this, but the DRM won't let you write it to a CD?Quote:
Is it possible to remove a licence on an mp3 file? i downloaded music from my rhapsody and i uploaded it to multiply.com. when i re-downloaded it the licence is still attached to the file and i want to burn it to a cd. is there any way to remove the licence on it? just curious...thanks for reading!
Who did you buy it from?
OH! and you don't remove the "license" just the DRM ;) which is legal here, but I don't know about where you are?
DRM is the way to make Piracy look good..
**** the customers and send them of to p2p..
Then make more and more wild laws to stop them using p2p..
Sue people that don't even own a pc..
All in all..
Pay more for less with p2p..
Land of the free... behahahahahahaha..
</rant>
AFAIK..."downloading" is not illegal...Quote:
at any rate... dont download... its illegal
trying to bypass a copyright license is
Most new cds will allow you to make a copy...either to your harddrive or a backup copy to CD
MLF
The basic Rhapsody version doesn't allow you to burn the tracks you've downloaded to CD. In order to be able to burn CD's, you need to have one of the premium subscriptions and pay a fee per song/album you want to burn.
Rhapsody is a legitimate service (much like iTunes, but subscription-based), so I don't know what's up with all the "don't download!" comments in this thread... not to mention that the OP's question is completely understandeable, as Rhapsody's terms and conditions aren't exactly 100% clear.
Ironically *she* has got positive anti-points for it.Quote:
xthisxisxmex
Let me give you a tip....
Dont ask how to bypass licensing....that is an illegal activity and is not tolerated here at AO
You will just get negged
MLF
Not from me she didnt...
Maybe a mod balancing things out
I dont usually neg newbs anyway....
I like to give em a heads up
MLF
Greeting's
MLF I think you are right about the downloading part. I think its uploading material for download using a P2P software which is illegal. and i think you got me wrong I wasnt pointing my finger at you. I'm sorry if it sounded like it.
No worries
I was just trying to clarify earlier that what I said was bypassing the copyright or EULA is illegal...
Not downloading
It is such a gray area in music...
My ex has almost 2 TBs of music on his Mac..with 4 external HDs
He will let his friends\family\staff make a cd, download to IPODs etc...
He is not selling it...but he is sharing it
He has legally bought all that music?? and copied , cataloged it on his computer
The machine is not on the internet...and is not open to just anyone
Is what he is doing....sharing with his friends illegal :what:
MLF
If everyone had taken the time to "read" her post, and read up on "rhapsody", negging wouldn't be appropriate as according to: Rhapsody's own EULA
Quote:
1. ENROLLMENT IN THE SERVICES
In exchange for applicable fees, and subject to certain limitations as described herein, you will be granted the right to stream (and/or download or burn, if applicable) tracks and video clips that are available as part of the Subscription Service to which you subscribe on the terms specified during the subscription registration process, and simultaneously have access to our broad range of editorial and contextual information about the artists your listening to and their recordings (including audio and, as applicable, video).
In order to access your Service(s), you must have downloaded the Application, possess the hardware and software required by the Application, and be connected to the Internet. Downloads obtained through your Service may be played when you are not connected to the Internet, but you must connect periodically to download more or update licenses.
Any information that you supply to us will be governed by the terms and conditions of RN-DMC's Privacy Policy, as it may be updated from time to time by us.
By subscribing to or accessing any Service, you are representing to us that you are authorized to use the credit card you submit for payment and that you reside in the United States. If you are a parent or guardian paying on behalf of a minor or other person, then you hereby agree to the terms of this Agreement and agree to take responsibility for the actions of such other person, any charges associated with that person's use of any of the Services, and that person's compliance with this Agreement. You agree to take such steps as are appropriate to ensure such compliance and will indemnify and hold RN-DMC and its affiliates and distribution and syndication partners harmless from any breach of this Agreement.
So I believe she had met the EULA requirements if she is a subscriber, and when she uploaded to Multiply.com (storage site) and then tried to retrieve her music, it came with the restrictions still in place? So in effect, though she allready owns the song, trying to download from storage and burning is blocked because of prior restrictions...is how I read this...I am not exactly sure about multiply.com's ability to share music, as I don't think it's a P2P program as we like to think of it as one?Quote:
(f) Track Downloads and Burning
Some of the Services may include the ability to download copies of certain songs to your hard drive, burn copies of songs directly to recordable compact discs, or transfer certain songs to supported portable devices. In some cases, downloading, burning, or transferring songs will incur a per-track fee for any such songs not already owned or licensed by the end user. In the case that such purchase fees are required, the user will be made aware that a cost will be incurred and asked to explicitly accept the charges prior to commencement of downloading. However, if you have explicitly turned on "one click purchasing" (or similar functionality) in your account settings, you will not be asked to accept the charges prior to commencement; with "one click purchasing," your single request to "purchase" is your confirmation of the order.
The point is, if I download/purchase a song from itunes or anyone else, that becomes my property, and if I want to burn it to a CD for personal use, why not I paid for it...this is still a grey area as well because iTunes have a caveat that even though the song resides on your Hard drive it is still their's and subject to restrictions, (reason why a lot of people are leaving iTunes subscription services), but as you can see with Rhapsody, they will allow you to burn the song to a CD, so as long as she paid for it, it's hers to burn away. It's when you upload to another site and try to retrieve it later that is the question here?
Yes I understand what she is trying to do
But this was the questionQuote:
Is it possible to remove a licence on an mp3 file
Maybe she should contact the services tech support...or use another service
MHO
as always
MLF
Touche....yes your right that was actually the question, but everyone right after more or less accused the OP of trying to steal copyrighted material,which if she hadn't of mentioned Rhapsody would be the correct response. But she allready owned the music? so it led to the ever dreadfull P2P question?Quote:
Originally posted here by morganlefay
Yes I understand what she is trying to do
But this was the question
Maybe she should contact the services tech support...or use another service
MHO
as always
MLF
Still a grey area? IMO
Contacting the techs is the right way to go..... ;)
OK, you bought a piece of music from rhapsody. Good for you. But, it has a license. You don't have the premium service, so you can't burn the music to CD with the license stuck in the file. You uploaded it to multiply.com (a beta service for sharing with friends) for storage--uh-huh.Quote:
Originally posted here by xthisxisxmex
Is it possible to remove a licence on an mp3 file? i downloaded music from my rhapsody and i uploaded it to multiply.com. when i re-downloaded it the licence is still attached to the file and i want to burn it to a cd. is there any way to remove the licence on it? just curious...thanks for reading! :)
Now, you download it back from the multiply.com storage and want to burn to CD. But, the file contains a license, so you can't. Can you remove the license?
If you know what you are doing and can use a hex editor--this is in the realm of possibility but not probability. The hours it would take are probably not as productively spent as the cost of just upgrading your rhapsody service and paying for a new download. If you upgrade your service to premium at rhapsody, you can get the music with a license that allows you to burn to CD. I seriously doubt that their technical support folks are going to tell you any different.
Just my tuppence.
Note: as for the greenies for the OP, probably not really appropriate for the individual. But the thread has generated some interesting comment.
Here are a few links (not specifically rhapsody).
http://www.tech-recipes.com/windows_tips840.html
http://freemymp3.com/
Google for Remove DRM Rhapsody or something of that nature. Good luck!
She doesn't own the Rhapsody subscription, and therefore can't upgrade it without convincing mommy or daddy to fork over the extra cash, so she's trying to innovate a way to burn the music to a CD. Perhaps it's not ethical, but it is admirable. We should admire resourcefulness instead of bashing it. Ethical guidance is necessary and all, but seriously...most of the posts here have been discouraging of innovation and resourcefulness. That makes for extremely boring site material, and I know we can do better because we HAVE in the past.
As for how I know she's not the owner of the subscription:
"Cheerleading, School, Friends, Youthgroup" are listed as her hobbies. What age does that generally suggest?
Yes resourceful....... but illegal.........Quote:
Perhaps it's not ethical, but it is admirable. We should admire resourcefulness instead of bash
music is such a gray area.........always has been ....always will be. :D
I dont think the OP should be negged for the post.....but maybe guided to do the right thing....
I am a mom.....with kids verging on the teen years
education and awareness
eg
I took my kids to an Avril Lavigne show...where posters inside were $15.00 and pirated posters outside were $2.00
We bought 1 $15.00 poster....and explained to the kids how they were ripping off Avril by not purchasing the merch inside..from a licensed vendor........where the artist gets 100%...(minus taxes, staff etc...and depending on contact with record co :rolleyes: )
they got it.....
RANT/
It is the record companies that dropped the ball here with the download trend....not the artists...they shouldnt suffer.....go to the show...............buy the merch ;)
\RANT OVER
MLF
I honestly don't see this as a moral or ethical issue,and, depending on your local legislation it may well not be legal one.
1. If I take out a subscription to a service and download entertainment, it is up to me what medium or device I choose to play it on? The vendors have been paid, and are in no way losing if I play it in my automobile, a portable device, my computer, or my in-home hi-fi system.
2. Sure, if I copy and distribute it, that is potentially unlawful, and if I charge for it then that is almost certainly illegal in a lot of places.
I think that Morgana~ pretty much nailed it down when she said:
It is the record companies that dropped the ball here with the download trend
The DRM that you see today is a lame attempt at preventing file sharing and unlawful distribution of media. It just happens to interfere with using devices other than PCs in some cases.
This will have come about as a part of the deals between recording companies and the download providers, as the music industry still hasn't "bought into" the technology yet.
The actual artistes do not lose out from this business. The "performance" belongs to the recording company. Artistes make their money out of concerts and TV, which includes t-shirts, posters etc. and from the contracts that they have with the recording companies.
Incidentally Morgana~ what you are describing would be classed as a criminal offence over here, and would be pursued by the police, trading standards and the customs and excise.
On a personal note, I would automatically remove the DRM from anything that I bought. They don't trust me?................well I certainly don't trust them! ..............surely we haven't all forgotten the Sony BMG fiasco? :eek:
Morgan, you mention Avril Lavigne . . . Recently she was part of the launch of a new coalition of Canadian artists speaking against suing music traders (and even financially helping those that are sued) and the use of DRM. The policy paper is a good read.
http://www.musiccreators.ca/Quote:
1. Suing Our Fans is Destructive and Hypocritical
Artists do not want to sue music fans. The labels have been suing our fans against our will, and laws enabling these suits cannot be justified in our names. We oppose any copyright reforms that would make it easier for record companies to do this. The government should repeal provisions of the Copyright Act that allow labels to unfairly punish fans who share music for non-commercial purposes with statutory damages of $500 to $20,000 per song.
2. Digital Locks are Risky and Counterproductive
Artists do not support using digital locks to increase the labels’ control over the distribution, use and enjoyment of music or laws that prohibit circumvention of such technological measures. The government should not blindly implement decade-old treaties designed to give control to major labels and take choices away from artists and consumers. Laws should protect artists and consumers, not restrictive technologies. Consumers should be able to transfer the music they buy to other formats under a right of fair use, without having to pay twice.
Fans who share music are not thieves or pirates. Sharing music has been happening for decades. It is hypocritical for labels to sue fans for something that everyone in the music industry has done him or herself. New technologies may have changed the way that fans share music, but they have not changed the fact that sharing helps artists' careers.
http://p2pnet.net/story/8648
Nice links hesperus...thanks
I was in the music business for 15 years when I was younger
I am sooooooooo out of loop now :(
I still have many friends there.....from artists, managers, agents, to record execs
I was there in the early nineties when all the talk was about music and the future
"it will be like selling coke with out the bottle"
It is exactly that.
The record companies were warned...and they did nothing about it.
"Snooze You Lose"
The artists want the music out there........
MLF
Well, I can beat you there Morgana~
I was in the industry in the late seventies :shocked:
I guess not much changed inbetween................in my day "cassette recorders" were the bogeyman, now it is the internet
:D
Thats cause your WAY older then me Nihil ;)Quote:
Well, I can beat you there Morgana~
actually...I was basement jamming in the late seventies
MLF
actually...I was basement jamming in the late seventies
OMG! I was nearly "thirtysomething" back then!
I would have moved out of the basement and been drunk in the upstairs bar by then :drink:
:cool:
Shucks, in those days I spent most of my time chasing women, driving fast cars ...
Hmmm ... not much has changed, eh?
;) > MLF
Hi Rapier~ I would appreciate your input here.
You guys have some relatively new law something like "digital millenium copyright something?"
That sounds as if it might be a showstopper on the legal front for people in the USA?
:confused:
Hi,Quote:
Originally posted here by nihil
Hi Rapier~ I would appreciate your input here.
You guys have some relatively new law something like "digital millenium copyright something?"
That sounds as if it might be a showstopper on the legal front for people in the USA?
:confused:
yes it was passed back in 1998 I think. One of the most controversial parts of the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) is the part that prohibits bypassing copy protection. Which means that even if your copying is otherwise legal, if the media creator has used copy protection, it is illegal to bypass the protection. One example is playing copy protected DVDs. Not talking copying--just playing. People who use Linux (in the US) to play copy protected DVDs on their computers are violating the DMCA (from what I understand). That's because the Linux distributions have not paid the money (to whomever it has to be paid) to allow them to legally include the decryption software. So, none of the major Linux distributions ship the decryption software.
Excerpts:
`Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
`(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
`(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
`(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
`(3) As used in this subsection--
`(A) to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
`(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
`(b) ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS- (1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or
`(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.
`(2) As used in this subsection--
`(A) to `circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure' means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and
`(B) a technological measure `effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.
The whole text is available here
Thanks, Preacher, for jumping in on this. I remember this being called a very bad piece of federal legislation because it doesn't consider the way people use the media they purchase. It basically supports the music and movie industry and their DRM efforts. Not an expert on it, though.
Yeah, "digital millenium copyright." High and mighty tag for a poor excuse for an industry stepping on their own ...