copying this here for comment and also in case the moderators delete it there:

As many know, I have posted many times about the problems that mac users are facing. I won't go into all of the details again here. The bottom line is that Mac users are prevented from legally burning a CD (among other problems) due to limitations in Microsoft software. I have outlined in many other threads why the solutions being suggested by others are in fact illegal as they bypass the DRM.

I have asked in many threads as well as private messages for an official statement from a moderator as to what is being done to address these issues, but have yet to get a direct response. In fact, the only comments I've seen indirectly relating to the issues we are having suggest that the moderators view is that they would rather not have us as customers than actually do something to server our needs. That all of these mac users who have spent hundreds of dollars each to support the club and thousands of dollars each on Prince music/videos, movies, concerts, etc. are not considered important.

This is the impression that is left by the public moderator comments (and lack thereof) to date. Can a moderator please do something to correct this perception. Saying nothing reflects poorly on the club. I want nothing more than an alternative option that works. Positivity isn't about ignoring problems that exist, it's about solving problems and helping people. Can we please get any comment all. Here, let me help - here are the options as I see it:

A - The club is going to offer industry standard AAC or MP3 files since the DRM being used is so easy to break anyway
B - The club is not going to have a solution and instead wants Mac users to not be able to listen to this music on a real stereo or in the car.
C - The club is not going to have a solution and instead wants Mac users to violate the digital millennium copyright act to burn a CD. Even if the club wants this, it's still illegal.
D - The club is going to mirror all of the club content on iTunes store (where the single is currently the #4 selling pop song) so the needs of Macintosh and iPod owning Prince fans can be met while maintaining DRM.

Can some moderator just tell us which of the above applies? Or even which of the above are being considered. If you just tell us what is being worked on and give us a time frame to expect a solution, you would make waiting for a solution a lot easier than the deafening silence on the issue.

Perhaps the club moderators don't understand how important Prince's music is in our lives. His music represents well more than half of my music library. Except for perhaps an odd missing maxi-single, I have everything officially released, even spending months tracking down the two official madhouse releases. I joined the NPGMC on day 1, I renewed the first day renewals were take, all so I wouldn't miss any music that was only briefly made available. In 20 years now, this is the first time I've ever been unable to buy a new prince album the day it was made available. After all of those years of support of Prince and his music, don't dismiss me and others like me as a statistic.

Yeah, the Mac support has always been terrible.

It's pretty stupid, imho, not to use the Apple Music Store. They already have a system that works. Works well. For Mac and PC users. Why insist on running it themselves?

Here's why: the extra $$$ is more important to them than a good customer (. . ."fam". . ."real music lover". . .) experience.

and they're already using the $$$ to hire more support personnel. I am certain that the result of what is being done is that Prince will make more money per copy sold at the iTunes store than he gets from the club store. It's .77 vs .65. And from that .77, you have to subtract out

- credit card fees
- hardware expenses
- network bandwidth fees
- support costs

Apple admits they don't make money off of their .34 fee, even with a nearly 3 million song/week sales rate. How is the NPGMC store going to keep their expenses below .12 so they come out ahead vs the Apple store.

tackam said:

Although I support your comments on supporting the mac users, I don't agree with this comment.

The ITunes is only available in the US so all the fans in the rest of the world would be left out. I also agree with the statement that the artist should be compensated for their work. I like to be able to cut out the middle man (and Apple is just a new middle man) and hopefully make it possible to get my hands on less commercial work by Prince.

Let me finish by saying that I would also love to be able to put the songs a bought directly on my IPod (yes windows users also buy IPods). Secondly I hate the fact that the burning software included in WMP9 in s**t...'Can I please get rid of the anoying gaps between the songs!!!'. So I would support the AAC file format (with DRM) if it where made available though the NPGMC, so I would have the best of both worlds.

Let me clarify, my preferred solution is for them to drop DRM and offer multiple formats. AAC, MP3, WMA. Since they likely won't do that, my alternative suggestion is to mirror all content at the iTunes store. And actually doing both is the best way to maximize their sales. I never once asked to drop what they are doing, only offer alternatives to meet the needs of more people. I realize mirroring the content at the iTunes store doesn't fully solve the problem since the iTunes store is currently US only. I do know Apple is working on making it available internationally. I don't know when this will happen, but the coming up 1 year anniversary of the store seems like a reasonable time for it to happen.

I'm all for AAC files . . . they're still rights-managed, and your email address is actually ENCODED into the song . . .

I downloaded the WMA files for Slaughterhouse and Chocolate Invasion, but was unable to burn them. I'm a little disappointed, but lesson learned. It was only $15, so if they make it right I'll eat that cost . . .

Mac support has been superb up until now. I don't know why someone wrote that it hasn't been. The 3 years of the club so far have been fine - the Year 1 downloads were playable in Quicktime or iTunes, and the videos have all been available for Quicktime.

They'll come around, Alandail, just give it some time. Keep up the good fight though!

(20" iMac Superdrive, 40GB iPod user . . .)

well, I'm goign on vacation for almost a week - I wish the moderators would at least address the issue. You're right, Mac support has been good in the past. In fact, the first people who ran the site were fired over the lack of mac support in the original club.

alandail said:

As a Mac user, I totaly feel ya, but just break the damn law already! I won't tell, I promise.

Just buyed chocolate invasion... I chose explorer as default browser... start the first song and I get a 'cannot locate file' error...


sigh

f.

weird... i copyed the files from my imac to an ibook, same macosx10.2.8, same explorer 5.2.2, same wmp 9, and it works...


f.

alandail, it sounds like they're basically telling you to burn the files however you have to, whether or not it technically breaks the law...I know that's probably not what you want to hear, but...

PeePee9 posted this today:

If they are changing the files and/or licenses, then no-one will be breaking the law. I could be wrong, but you are not contravening the DMCA if you burn to CD then convert to another format anyway, as the files are changed to another unprotected format during the burn process, which is allowed as per the license. Technically the burned CD is no longer the same files that you downloaded, and therefore only normal copyright/fair use issues will apply.

I just hought of something else - now that the downloaded files will be able to be transfered to a portable device of your choice directly (as granted by the license), will those who have been complaining now badger Apple to enable the iPod to play WMA files?
Current supported formats:AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 (32 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Audible, AIFF and WAV
Can't see that happening, can you?

PeePee9 posted this today:



As a mac user I support the PP's stance 100%. And I think everyone on their high-horse about "being forced to break the law" should remove the stick from their arse. Provided you use the music for PERSONAL USE you are causing no harm to NPGMC and not violating the reasons DRM files were created.

Some people have been converting them to mp3s and posting them on a few internet groups and sites and I'm glad to say are being slammed but 99% of Prince fans who use the areas. The huge majority of fans whant this to work and for people to use the files properly. The music is cheap, it's available world-wide (remember iTunes is US only but why should that concern some of you, just lookout for yourselves!!), and there are ways of playing it on both systems.

This is a new venture, so give it a chance. Windows Media Play might bring in burning facilities for their program, who knows? But please, stop doing the standard Prince thing and bitching about everything the man or his club does. It's getting very boring.

I agree: itunes store can not be the answer. Here in europe mac users can not buy using it.

But windows media player is the wrong answer too, 'cause it works real bad on macintosh. When it works.

I have an imac and a ibook, same macos, same explorer, same windows media player version... npgmc files do not works on imac, they works on ibook. Why? I do not know, npgmc does not know, microsoft does not.

And to convert the files to aiff to burn MY cd, I have to buy a shareware software.
No, I hope npgmc could find better way to sell music.



f.

Lordy lord....

PeePee9 posted this today:


Why not? Does the contract with your DRM company prohibit you to do that?


Why? Does it stop filesharing? No. Is it really necessary to own the files customers paid for? No. Is it really necessary to frustrate customers with DRM problems? No. So why?


You are not "giving away" and certainly not "all of Prince's music", nor "to some other company". But why not post the tracks on Itunes? What's the deal with posting just a little? Post everything or nothing, not just a little.


Mac users may get a license, but that doesn't mean they get what they pay for. And there are other formats you can use that are less problematic than WMA.

I find that hard to believe. Maybe you need to look a little harder? And those companies own rights to the DRM copy protection software you use. When this DRM is circumvented, as you suggest mac users should do, NPGMC customers violate the DMCA. Good idea? I don't think so.

Strange then that there are so many reported problems already. And are you saying that all those "dozens of music download stores coming online every month" are more popular than I-tunes? Why not release the music on i-tunes? Because the DRM company doesn't allow you?


So according to the NPGMC it is acceptable to bypass the DRM and break the DMCA? Because that's what you are suggesting. Legally it doesn't matter what purpose the circumvention is for. Whether it is done for private or public use it's all illegal under the DMCA . Does your DRM company agree with your suggestion? I kinda doubt it...

That's reassuring.


That makes sense. You should leave it with that then.


--
[This message was edited Sun Apr 4 13:06:17 2004 by Abrazo]

fabriziovenerandi said:

soon they will.

Abrazo said:

No, the operative word in PP9's posting is "independently". NPG wants to run an independent download service... if you look at press releases issued by NPG about the download service, it mentions this over and over again.
WMA is currently the only DRM format that can be implemented without someone elses business model attached. Protected AAC is Apple's property and Apple isn't licensing the technology to anyone. If you want to use protected AAC the only thing you can do is offer your music through the ITunes service (which means signing up for a minimum of 3 years, a set percentage to Apple for each acquisistion and no control whatsover over the ITunes environment and how Apple chooses to market it).
[This message was edited Sun Apr 4 15:14:10 2004 by m3taverse]

Abrazo said:

What we have here is explicit permission from the contentowner to use whatever means to play the files on whatever device we feel like. DMCA is designed to protect the content owners, not go against their wishes. What the content owner explicitely states always overrules the written text of DMCA, this is the intent and spirit of DMCA and no lawyer will tell you otherwise.
Doing what the content owner explicitely gave you permission for is not illegal under any law.

m3taverse said:

That's not really how they phrased it. They did say "whatever software", but the problem with that is that the DMCA not only makes the use of software designed to bypass DRM illegal, but also the production, possession and distribution of it. There is hardly a legal way around it.


You really think the DMCA was only designed to protect the content owner? Do think again. It was also designed to support the content providers , the rise of a DRM market and the owners of DRM technology. Also, please provide me with the rule where it states that the content owner's permission to bypass a copy protection measure is valid under the law, regardless of the rights of the DRM onwer and/ or provider.

You don't have to explain the legal principles to me. But in this case it's not just about the content owner. What if the DRM owner opposes? Ever thought about that? There are recent cases where protection is sought under trade secrets also. It is a very new and undiscovered area of law we are talking about, in which the DMCA isn't the only law playing a part.


--
[This message was edited Tue Apr 6 12:07:34 2004 by Abrazo]

m3taverse said:

That doesn't mean that the DRM provider hasn't covered this in their contract.


I am not familiar with the ins and outs of their deals, so I guess I should digress from making factual statements, but I think it's really unlikley that, whoever provided wthem with this DRM, didn't oblige the club to adhere to at least a few rules on what can and can not be done with the DRM software.


They can't control CD's either once they are sold. And there is always room for negotiation, especially with an artist like Prince. Plus, there are a few singles there now, no? So I guess there should be no big deal about it and you fail to convince me. But I guess it could also be Sony who opposes working with Apple to much, since they got their own donload services. It may also be NPGMC stubborness. Whatever it is, it could have been arranged better.



--
[This message was edited Tue Apr 6 12:16:06 2004 by Abrazo]

Abrazo said:

The DRM used by NPGMC is from MS, you can request the full text of the licensing agreement here : http://wmlicense.smdisp.n...efault.asp
The license for MS DRM itself is provided free of charge by MS, but a central database exists of all licensors of MS DRM. This is because every distributor of MS DRM packaged files receives an encryption key unique to that distributor, which is an important part of MS's DRM technology (if anyone was ever able to retrieve the encryption key, damage would be limited to that distributor)
MS imposes no limitation on usage by the licensor, which makes sense for MS as a creator of "tools". Licensors are free to implement any business model they like, and are not limited to using only the WMA or MS DRM format.
That's why you can find many different implementations of MS DRM around the web. One of the more interesting ones (altho prolly doomed) is by a company called Weedshare (http://www.weedshare.com/). They actually encourage their users to distribute the DRM packed files through a kickback program.
In NPGMC's case, they themselves are not the holder of an MS DRM license. They hired a company who provides them with DRM services (most likely limited to DRM packing, distribution of the playback licenses and the transaction mechanism).
It might well be possible that this service provider poses limitations on usage, but it's highly unlikely because the DRM service provider would want to support as many different formats as possible themselves. Besides, in this case the service provider has other clients in the music business, including artists that support formats besides MS DRM.
Also I don't think that NPGMC would limit themselves contractually to just one format... there are many DRM service providers around the world, and it would just be a matter of shopping around a bit.

About protected AAC being property of Apple, and Apple not licensing it to anyone:

Abrazo said:

No, there is currently no negotiating on this issue with Apple. And it's no wonder really... Apple is making more money selling Ipods and music now then it does selling Macintosh computers, they're not about to dilute their singular proposition by letting other people find alternate uses for their technology (Apple would be creating competition to both ITunes and the Ipod if it licensed protected AAC, and stands to loose more cash through that then it would gain from the licensing deals).
I think the singles that are on ITunes now are not placed there by NPGMC but by Columbia/Sony, which has a multiyear contract with Apple, and as Columbia/Sony has distribution rights the Musicology single showed up on Itunes. I expect the full Musicology album to appear there as well on the official release date of the album.

m3taverse said:

First of all: thanks for the link but it really doesn't show me what kind of deal NPGMC has.
Secondly, HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS FOR SURE?


Oh, it's precisely that "no" limitations that I find that so hard to believe. I have worked with other laywers for MS and standard practice is that they always ask you to limit the rights of others, preferably as much as is legally possible. I haven't dealt with any DRM cases tho', so i'm not sure about this one... but I still find it very hard to believe due to MS' notoriously unilateral standard contract practices.


And how do you know THIS? Who is that third company and why do you think they didn't limit NPGMC in what they can an can not do with the DRM?
Regarding the third company's DRM license. If they hired a third company who has a license, but NPGMC is the factual user of the DRM, NPGMC has been granted a sublicense to use the DRM by that company. That is also a license, which can, and to my expectation, will be be restricted.


Wanting to support as many different formats as possible may be the case, BUT wanting that isn't the same as supporting the granting of a license to the NPGMC members to bypass the DRM using "any software". Especially not when the DMCA stritcly prohibites exactly that behaviour.

And how do you know THAT?
It is starting to look like you know a great deal about the inside of NPGMC's business affairs...


It seems most likely and normal to me that they will have limited themselves to one format for the duration of the contract they entered into.

About protected AAC being property of Apple, and Apple not licensing it to anyone:

You honestly think Apple can negotiate exclusive download deals with copyright owners, making it impossible for them to offer the same downloads on other services? That's absurd and anti-competitive behaviour and especially unlikely when the majors have their own download services and are pushed by government to offer their songs on as many legitimate platforms as possible.



If Sony really would have the INTERNET distribution rights to Musicology Prince has made a bad deal with them. They should only have CD distribution rights, for a limited amount of time.


--
[This message was edited Thu Apr 8 15:05:58 2004 by Abrazo]

The company providing the DRM solution is called Entriq.
The company doing the distribution of the files (hosting) is called Vitalstream.

This info comes from press releases posted on NPGMC, and links like this one
http://www.digitalmusicne...0704prince

My knowledge of MS' licensing agreement for DRM comes from work experience. MS imposes no limitation on the business model a licensee chooses to implement. MS's responsibility and involvement stops at the point the license and technology are delivered to the licensee.
You are right that MS does not want people to break their technology, but circumventing it in the way NPGMC and other people have suggested, does not actually break their technology (the original files remain with DRM in tact). MS understands that a digital -> analogue -> digital conversion will always be possible no matter the strength of the DRM, so it's responsibility and involvement stops at the encryption level... it honestly doesn't care what the licensee recommends it's customers do with the content.

here's what I posted at NPGMC:

I've been out of town and just saw the official statement. The official statement has many flaws.



This isn't "giving away Prince's music", this is simply expanding distribution to more paying customers. The iTunes store dominates the legal music download market - selling tracks via iTunes is no different that distributing CDs via Best Buy. It's simply a way to reach more customers and should be viewed as such.



This is wrong. The Real Networks music store is AAC based. The Sony music store is based on ATRAC3. And of the formats, AAC, WMA, ATRAC3, only AAC qualifies as an industry standard as of the 3, it's the only one that is ISO approved as an actual standard. It's DRM that has no standard. Thus Apple, Real Networks, and Microsoft all have different DRM. Microsoft's DRM is no more an industry standard than Apple's. WMA files are Microsoft proprietary DRM wrapped around a Microsoft proprietary audio format. There is no industry standard in the mix at all. If you are instead talking de facto standards, wouldn't you agree that the format that controls 70% of the legal music downloads is the de facto standard?



You can of course, flip this around and point out that despite the fact all Windows users have access to both the fully functional WM9 player and the fully functional iTunes, the majority of windows users who buy online downloads choose to do so with from the iTunes store. In fact, the market share numbers look like this

#1 - Windows users buying from the iTunes Store
#2 - Mac users buying from the iTunes Store
#3 - all other users from all other stores combined.

The industry stats tell you that even Windows users prefer iTunes when they have a choice.



Even your saying this is OK does not change the fact that it is in fact illegal due to the Digital Millennium copyright act. Not only is it illegal to convert the format, it is illegal to own the software designed to convert the format. I am actually shocked that your official position is to ask your customers to break the law. Will you offer technical support to help people break the law to convert the files? Legal issues asside, if you are encouraging people to convert WMA files to unprotected AAC files for personal use, why are you at the same time insisting to not offer those unprotected AAC files as an option to users.



"A voluntary service" - exactly what does that mean? First of all, I've paid a total of $225 in membership fees to the NPGMC. The history of the club has been equal support for Macintosh users. Now this has suddenly changed and you call it "voluntary"? Prince fans who pay money to be able to keep up with the latest prince releases are now being shut out. What would you have us do then? Are you flat out telling us that people who prefer the ISO approved industry standard AAC format are left with only the choice of breaking the law in order to acquire this music in a usable format?



I want to buy this music and it is not made available to me. So this statement is in fact wrong. It should read "for those of you we want as customers, this option is available and we are otherwise currently doing nothing to serve the needs for the rest of you who want this service".

m3taverse said:

It's still illegal - NPGMC can't change the law - the law explicitly prohibits bypassing DRM. It also explicitly prohibits owning, writing, or selling software intended to do so.

alandail said:

NPG says you can do whatever you want with the files, as long as you buy the license and keep the music for personal use. Sounds clear to me. DMCA will no way take presedence over this statement by PP9.
In regard to owning software that records music coming out of your sound card, no way that that's illegal.

m3taverse said:

It's illegal to circumvent DRM - a post at the NPGMC isn't going to change the law - a law which has held up in court over software that does for movies what we are now being told to do to these music files. If the NPGMC wants people to circumvent DRM, then they shouldn't use it in the first place. Do you not see the contradiction? They say they are using DRM to protect the files, thus will not offer any unprotected format, but in the very same message they tell people to circumvent the DRM for personal use. Guess what, if they don't use DRM at all, then the things they tell us to do for personal use become legal. And the activities that they don't want us to do remain illegal. Once the DRM is applied to the file, it's the digital millennium copyright act that controls the legality of what can be done with the file.

They even tell windows users to violate the very license they install on the file in their post. The DRM they are using expressly prohibits copying the song even to a WMA based digital music player. They tell windows users to violate the very license they are selling to them, a violation of which remains illegal despite what they said.

It is quite clear that the source of the problem here is the DRM. The DRM which by their own words they admit is trivially easy to bypass if you are willing to break the law.

O3taverse said:

Sorry, but NPGMC isn't just saying that it'sokay to convert from digital to analogue and back, it is also saying that it's okay to do that using "any software". Hello??? That's illegal under the DMCA and the European copyright directive. Wanna know what I found on that site you linked to?

unCDcopy Uses "Analogue Hole" to Circumvent CD-Copy Protections

"A new software package from RapidSolution Software of Germany has been designed to circumvent CD-copy protections. unCDcopy uses an "analogue hole" to record a CD`s content and record to a user`s hard drive, automatically detecting song breaks. Analog recording has always been a way to bootleg protected audio content; unCDcopy merely makes the process easier and more automated. The software is so far a niche offering, but expect legal action if popularity increases. Both the EU Copyright Directive and DMCA prohibit the deliberate circumvention of content protection technologies. webindia123.com "This program lets you copy music without any restrictions!"


NPGMC is actually giving its customers a license to break the law.


--
[This message was edited Fri Apr 9 8:19:31 2004 by Abrazo]

alandail said:

Can you provide us with the text of the license?


DRM is definitly the problem here. But it is a problem caused by NPGMC's wishes that the mp3 days "are over". So they now use DRM and automatically put the files under control of the rules of the DMCA which they then suggest to break: That's