How do I copy all this onto my Rio MP3 Player ???

I can play it on my Computer... but I can't copy to my MP3...

DownTheNeedleDownTheSpoon said:

I don't think you can play it because they require licenses that don't work on an mp3 player - damn protection - what you have to do is burn the mp3s onto an audio cd, then rip them back into mp3 format - that removes the protection and you will be able to play them on your mp3 player. It's such a pain because it is so easy to get around the protection,and actually necessary in the age of mp3 players, that it is pointless having the protection.

metalorange is right -- the thing to do is burn the Windows Media Audio files that you bought from the club to a CD, then re-import the music from the CD as nonprotected mp3 files that you can then copy to your Rio player.

DRM is so completely pointless...

Doozer said:

Thank you both !

Just asked the same thing about my Sony player over at the club. I can burn to CD and rip again, but I'd prefer not to because of quality issues and because it's such a pointless pain. PPs suggested burning & ripping too.

And I used the word "damn" and it came out "****". I feel about 12!

PopeLeo said:

I agree it's a pointless pain, however I don't think you should lose quality converting to .wav on a cd, and when you convert back to mp3 if you make sure the bitrate is the same or higher than the original mp3 it should sound the same.

their instructions to do this both show how pointless it is for them to use a proprietary DRM system to sell their music and completely ignores that the system they use will not burn CDs on a macintosh. Not only that, it completely ignores the fact that circumventing the DRM that they impose on these files violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, thus is illegal.

The correct thing would be for hte club to offer the music in the format of your choice. WMA, AAC, MP3, uncompressed. Let people download and use whichever is more convenient instead of making them jump thru hoops just to listen to music. And I refuse to buy the music until they correct this. It's just complete nonsense when they tell people to violate the restrictions they insist upon imposing.

metalorange said:

no, going from one lossy format to another results in degraded quality vs starting with an uncompressed original as the source of the target compression. uncompressing the WMA file still retains all of the quality loss of the original compression. Since the new compression is also lossy, it introduces new signal loss. The net result is the worst of both compressions. The only way to avoid this is to use a lossless format, which takes up quite a bit more space while still suffering all of the quality loss of the original compression.

alandail said:

Well, I don't want to disagree with you, because I know you're 'the man' on this subject! I know mp3s have lost some information from the original uncompressed format, but the difference is far less noticeable in pop music than it would be in classical music where every square inch is filled with sound. On a tv show I saw they did a test where they got a band with a new single out into a recording studio and played them their own song unknown via vinyl, CD and mp3. In the end they actually thought the mp3 was clearer and sounded better, and vinyl came last!

It's a shame there's still this war between macs and pcs. When will the madness end! I remember back in the 90's designers had to buy macs because the publishing and photo imaging software was uptodate whereas the pcs versions of the same software lagged a few versions behind. So macs became synonymous with designing, and I still see jobs advertised for designers insisting they know mac software, whereas in fact a long time ago now the pcs and macs started releasing identical software for both. And yet I still get surprised looks when I say I'm a designer and I don't have a mac!

I wish both platforms could just 'get along' a bit more, sheesh!

alandail said:

exactly:
Original/.WAV -> .WMA : LOSSY.
.WMA -> .WAV : Not Lossy.
.WAV -> .MP3 : LOSSY!

So definitely, yes, by burning .WMA to audio cd and re-ripping to .MP3, you LOSE quality.

the signal has then been compressed TWO TIMES!... -> Double Trouble!
[Edited 4/14/05 6:15am]

fred said:

Yes, but no more lossy than getting an unprotected wma file and converting it to mp3 to play on an mp3 player.
[Edited 4/14/05 8:59am]

I was wondering why the quality of the audio tracks from the club don't seem nearly as nice as store-bought cds. That kind of sucks.

Your MP3 player would have to have a "Plays For Sure" logo on it in order to play DRM files. The iRiver, for instance, has this.

alandail said:

Will you please stop spreading this misinformation! Burning the files to cd is not circumventing the DRM - it is allowed by the license that you acquire for the file and is thus completely in keeping with the DRM for that file to be converted to audio cd format during the burning. The resulting audio cd is not bound by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as it is a new format with no imbedded protection. Ripping that cd to mp3 to put on your portable player would fall under the same regulations as any audio cd.
If (for whatever reason) you are unable to burn the files to cd and instead use a program like Audio HiJack or Total Recorder to copy the files to your harddrive as they play, then you are circumventing the DRM.
I have no love for the format/quality of the files being offered at the club, but you do your cause no favours by continually bringing up this false notion that burning the files to cd is in breach of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

gsh said:

It is not misinformation. Burning the CD does not violate the license. Ripping it back in does - that's the point I've been making. Ripping the file back in as a AAC or MP3 file violates the DMCA. You have taken a DRM protected file and converted it into a format free of the DRM, thus circumvented the DRM, thus violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. People have developed software to do such conversions directly, bypassing the step of burning the file to a CD, and in all cases, they have been sued under the DMCA, which explicitly makes producing the unprotected alternate copy of the DRM protected file illegal. You don't change the law by burning the CD. Burning a CD doesn't give you new rights beyond playing that CD on CD players. You didn't buy the CD, you bought the DRM protected WMA file that explicitly has restrictions from converting it to another computer format
[Edited 4/15/05 7:08am]
[Edited 4/15/05 7:10am]

Digital Rights Management. Spells it out. If the license that you acquire grants the ability to burn to cd, it informs the imbedded DRM and the function is allowed. The resulting format (cd) is no longer protected by DMCA. The contents of the cd are different to the original file. They are not a bit for bit copy minus DRM. Therefore it cannot be an infringement of DRM/DMCA to rip it to your pc in another format. You are not converting the original file. Here you get into copyright law, a totally seperate issue than DRM/DMCA.

I know, and said as much in my post.
[Edited 4/15/05 7:35am]

gsh said:

No, the DRM imposes legal restrictions on what you can do with the file. The copy of the file that is on the CD is a copy that is under the same legal restrictions as the original. You do not change the legal restrictions by making that copy. If the original legally prohibits you from converting it to a MP3, the copy has the same restrictions. The fact that the format itself allows something doesn't lift the legal restrictions.

There are two issues here. The license and the copy protection. The license is the legal issue. The copy protection is an intrusive step to enforce the license. Being allowed by the license to put the file onto a CD, which by definition isn't copy protected, doesn't change the terms of the license.