Can anyone explain to me why I can not use legally purchased audio files from
MSN Music (read: MICROSOFT) into my own Windows Movie Maker (again:
MICROSOFT) projects?! I recognise that the problem lies in the DRM
protection, but I have purchased the song and merely want to use it for my
own enjoyment.

Could it be a problem with "licenses". When you download purchased music you
normally get a license with it. This license is stored somewhere on your
computer. When you go to use the purchased music, it searches for the
license and if it can't find it, well....... I know I had this problem one
time.
--
Kenneth J R



"EarRat" wrote:

> Can anyone explain to me why I can not use legally purchased audio files from
> MSN Music (read: MICROSOFT) into my own Windows Movie Maker (again:
> MICROSOFT) projects?! I recognise that the problem lies in the DRM
> protection, but I have purchased the song and merely want to use it for my
> own enjoyment.

"KenniKanuck" wrote ...
> Could it be a problem with "licenses". When you download
> purchased music you normally get a license with it. This license
> is stored somewhere on your computer. When you go to use the
> purchased music, it searches for the license and if it can't find it,
> well....... I know I had this problem one time.

The kind of license you get from Microsoft (or from anyone
else, for that matter) does NOT include the "Synchronization
Rights" which is required to include music in a film or video.
This is the copyright law in the USA. Microsoft is required to
implement this law. If you don't like it, complain to your
congress-critter(s).

The problem is that it is exceedingly difficult to quantify the concept of
"fair use". The original poster (EarRat) said that s/he "want[ed] to use it
[the music] for my own enjoyment"; that would probably qualify as "fair use"
and not "Synchronization Rights" (athough I am not a lawyer).

However, the DRM technologies can't really know the inteded use, and even if
they could, it would be difficult to enforce. Furthermore, because of the
DCMA, it is illegal to break the DRM even if the intent of doing so is "fair
use".

Dan

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
news:11q4kta31a6vvcc@corp.supernews.com...
> "KenniKanuck" wrote ...
>> Could it be a problem with "licenses". When you download
>> purchased music you normally get a license with it. This license
>> is stored somewhere on your computer. When you go to use the
>> purchased music, it searches for the license and if it can't find it,
>> well....... I know I had this problem one time.
>
> The kind of license you get from Microsoft (or from anyone
> else, for that matter) does NOT include the "Synchronization
> Rights" which is required to include music in a film or video.
> This is the copyright law in the USA. Microsoft is required to
> implement this law. If you don't like it, complain to your
> congress-critter(s).

"J. Daniel Smith" wrote ...
> The problem is that it is exceedingly difficult to quantify
> the concept of "fair use".

That is what many people would like to think. OTOH,
the legal system doesn't appear to share your difficulty.
If you can find an attorney who practices intellectual
property law who thinks you have a case, then go for it.
Else, it is likely to be considered illegal by any court you
are likely to be summoned to.

I'm not saying that people don't do it all the time, or that
it is very likely that you will be sued for making a video
for Aunt Martha or Grandma Jones. But the myth that it
is somehow covered by "fair use" is just a popular self-
delusion.

This link: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html says "The distinction
between 'fair use' and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined".
Applying the four factors to the video for Aunt Martha doesn't really help
clear things up any.

1. Clearly a use that is not "of a commerial nature". You might even be
able to stretch and say that it is for "educational purposes" (learning how
to use a computer/WMM2)

2. I'm not sure exactly what "nature" means here. Would there be a
difference between a currently popular song and something obscure?

3. One song off a CD, so maybe 10%. Could be less if you buy just one song
from iTunes. But the site says "There is no specific number of words,
lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission"

4. Using a song in a video for Grandma Jones probably isn't going to make
the song any less valuable. You might try arguing the likelyhood of Grandma
Jones buying/not-buying the song based on it being included in your video.

But this is all moot: even if a laywer (or some court ruling) said that
using a song in a personal video is "fair use" and not "infringement", you
STILL can't legally unlock the DRM. I wonder if there is a specific ruling
on point (fair use, not DRM), as you say nobody is "...likely [to be] sued
for making a [personal] video...", until a Judge makes a ruling this is all
mostly interpretation and opinion (and I am not a lawyer).

Dan

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
news:11q6nem1u5cur42@corp.supernews.com...
> "J. Daniel Smith" wrote ...
>> The problem is that it is exceedingly difficult to quantify the concept
>> of "fair use".
>
> That is what many people would like to think. OTOH,
> the legal system doesn't appear to share your difficulty.
> If you can find an attorney who practices intellectual
> property law who thinks you have a case, then go for it.
> Else, it is likely to be considered illegal by any court you
> are likely to be summoned to.
>
> I'm not saying that people don't do it all the time, or that
> it is very likely that you will be sued for making a video
> for Aunt Martha or Grandma Jones. But the myth that it
> is somehow covered by "fair use" is just a popular self-
> delusion.