Licence removal

[rapier57]

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!

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.

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.

[tinker]

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!

[keezel]

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?

[morganlefay]

Perhaps it's not ethical, but it is admirable. We should admire resourcefulness instead of bash

Yes resourceful....... but illegal.........

music is such a gray area.........always has been ....always will be.

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 )

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

[nihil]

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?

[hesperus]

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.

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://www.musiccreators.ca/
http://p2pnet.net/story/8648

[morganlefay]

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

[nihil]

Well, I can beat you there Morgana~

I was in the industry in the late seventies

I guess not much changed inbetween................in my day "cassette recorders" were the bogeyman, now it is the internet

[morganlefay]

Well, I can beat you there Morgana~

Thats cause your WAY older then me Nihil

actually...I was basement jamming in the late seventies

MLF

[nihil]

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