6 ms·

Well you are not wrong, but pirating is not the answer but cracking. For example i regularly backup my Audible library and remove the DRM, not to redistribute t

by nix23 5y ago

Well you are not wrong, but pirating is not the answer but cracking. For example i regularly backup my Audible library and remove the DRM, not to redistribute them, but in the case Amazon closes the Audible-brand, change the Apps i can access my library, delete some of them etc (we all know what can happen and did in the past). Same with games, if possible i buy them from HumbleBundle or GOG. And i never buy something that is bound to a platform that i really care for.

fsflover 5y ago
You still support this unfair business with your money. If you want to fight DRM, check out https://www.defectivebydesign.org/ https://www.defectivebydesign.org/.
- nix23 5y ago
  Look the audible drm is so easy to remove i am ok with it, if they change it and i cannot remove it anymore i will stop. And yes i hate drm too, but since stallman is a extremist that supports un-free licenses (unlike the BSD and MIT) i will not listen to his wannabe rants, and i will never forgive him to change the GCC license to GPL3 only. If i care for something i remove the drm, if i cant, i will stop buying it.
  - 5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
    Those "unfree licenses" are the reason you're not forced to use Windows on desktops/laptops/phones/servers/toasters/supercomputers (it does none of these things well even now, imagine the world we would have if it didn't have any competition at all). GPL puts the user's freedom first. Every developer is mostly a user anyway, unless you're writing absolutely everything from scratch like they do in SerenityOS. So I like that stance very much. If you don't, nobody is forcing you to interact with GPLed software in any way.
    - saladuh 5y ago
      Exactly. Copyleft is more about "freedom for society" as a whole, ensuring all users (which includes developers) retain this version of freedom. Permissive licenses are more about "freedom" for the individual to do whatever they want, with the potential to take freedoms away from others as a result. I think the stupid anti-gpl sentiment mostly comes from American idealisms of freedom, and developer selfishness, but that's just imo. The GPL still lets you do whatever you want in the privacy of your own computer, but when you put that GPLed software into the public, you need to ensure that you give the same freedoms to everyone else to have within their own computers as well. I think that's much more noble and kind. But as long as it's free software, I'll still use it and be happy it is, regardless of the license. And tbh it'd be nice if the small, loud minority of BSD lovers, GPL despisers would shut up. They give the BSD crowd a terrible look.
    - nix23 5y ago
      >Those "unfree licenses" are the reason you're not forced to use Windows on desktops/laptops/phones/servers/toasters/supercomputers (it does none of these things well even now, imagine the world we would have if it didn't have any competition at all). BS, i use FreeBSD and no one ever forced me to use Windows, Linux on the Desktop does everything right? >GPL puts the user's freedom first. No it's free promotion for the FSF >scratch like they do in SerenityOS Yes and they chose a good license (BSD2)
      - fsflover 5y ago
        > No it's free promotion for the FSF They deserve the promotion, because they created useful software. > BS, i use FreeBSD and no one ever forced me to use Windows At some point, Windows was everywhere, you couldn't hide from it. Now, Linux provides a strong competition, forcing even Microsoft to include it into Windows. BSD, instead, served as free labor for Apple, who created a walled garden for users. What exactly do you want to do with the code that GPL prevents you from?
neuroma 5y ago
Care to suggest a preferred method?
- exhilaration 5y ago
  I too would like to know this, I've got years of Audible books and this is the first time I even thought of backing them up. This Reddit thread has several options https://www.reddit.com/r/audible/comments/nphw1w/easiest_way_to_remove_an_audible_book_drm_aaxmp3/ https://www.reddit.com/r/audible/comments/nphw1w/easiest_way... including a website that will generate the ffmpeg command: https://audible-converter.ml/ https://audible-converter.ml/
periheli0n 5y ago
This is still pirating. The fact that you don't share the cracked media doesn't change the fact that you violated the T&Cs. And I'm pretty sure they could sue you for piracy.
- JohnFen 5y ago
  In the US, I don't think they could (but it may depend on the details of how you did it). They could sue you for contract violation, but would they? There's no upside for them to do so.
- Volker_W 5y ago
  > And I'm pretty sure they could sue you for piracy. Afaik, they could in Germany. One of the most BS laws.
  - nix23 5y ago
    You have a right for a private copy in Germany too, but you are not allowed to use software who can "delete security mechanisms"...that's why it is such a BS law.
- nix23 5y ago
  In Switzerland we have a law "right for private copy" and yes you have the right to crack the drm, it's not like that german perversion. Terms are not law, and are most terms are illegal in europe anyway.

by nix23 5y ago

fsflover 5y ago

You still support this unfair business with your money. If you want to fight DRM, check out https://www.defectivebydesign.org/ https://www.defectivebydesign.org/.

nix23 5y ago
Look the audible drm is so easy to remove i am ok with it, if they change it and i cannot remove it anymore i will stop. And yes i hate drm too, but since stallman is a extremist that supports un-free licenses (unlike the BSD and MIT) i will not listen to his wannabe rants, and i will never forgive him to change the GCC license to GPL3 only. If i care for something i remove the drm, if i cant, i will stop buying it.
- 5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
  Those "unfree licenses" are the reason you're not forced to use Windows on desktops/laptops/phones/servers/toasters/supercomputers (it does none of these things well even now, imagine the world we would have if it didn't have any competition at all). GPL puts the user's freedom first. Every developer is mostly a user anyway, unless you're writing absolutely everything from scratch like they do in SerenityOS. So I like that stance very much. If you don't, nobody is forcing you to interact with GPLed software in any way.
  - saladuh 5y ago
    Exactly. Copyleft is more about "freedom for society" as a whole, ensuring all users (which includes developers) retain this version of freedom. Permissive licenses are more about "freedom" for the individual to do whatever they want, with the potential to take freedoms away from others as a result. I think the stupid anti-gpl sentiment mostly comes from American idealisms of freedom, and developer selfishness, but that's just imo. The GPL still lets you do whatever you want in the privacy of your own computer, but when you put that GPLed software into the public, you need to ensure that you give the same freedoms to everyone else to have within their own computers as well. I think that's much more noble and kind. But as long as it's free software, I'll still use it and be happy it is, regardless of the license. And tbh it'd be nice if the small, loud minority of BSD lovers, GPL despisers would shut up. They give the BSD crowd a terrible look.
  - nix23 5y ago
    >Those "unfree licenses" are the reason you're not forced to use Windows on desktops/laptops/phones/servers/toasters/supercomputers (it does none of these things well even now, imagine the world we would have if it didn't have any competition at all). BS, i use FreeBSD and no one ever forced me to use Windows, Linux on the Desktop does everything right? >GPL puts the user's freedom first. No it's free promotion for the FSF >scratch like they do in SerenityOS Yes and they chose a good license (BSD2)
    - fsflover 5y ago
      > No it's free promotion for the FSF They deserve the promotion, because they created useful software. > BS, i use FreeBSD and no one ever forced me to use Windows At some point, Windows was everywhere, you couldn't hide from it. Now, Linux provides a strong competition, forcing even Microsoft to include it into Windows. BSD, instead, served as free labor for Apple, who created a walled garden for users. What exactly do you want to do with the code that GPL prevents you from?

neuroma 5y ago

Care to suggest a preferred method?

exhilaration 5y ago
I too would like to know this, I've got years of Audible books and this is the first time I even thought of backing them up. This Reddit thread has several options https://www.reddit.com/r/audible/comments/nphw1w/easiest_way_to_remove_an_audible_book_drm_aaxmp3/ https://www.reddit.com/r/audible/comments/nphw1w/easiest_way... including a website that will generate the ffmpeg command: https://audible-converter.ml/ https://audible-converter.ml/

periheli0n 5y ago

This is still pirating. The fact that you don't share the cracked media doesn't change the fact that you violated the T&Cs. And I'm pretty sure they could sue you for piracy.

JohnFen 5y ago
In the US, I don't think they could (but it may depend on the details of how you did it). They could sue you for contract violation, but would they? There's no upside for them to do so.
Volker_W 5y ago
> And I'm pretty sure they could sue you for piracy. Afaik, they could in Germany. One of the most BS laws.
- nix23 5y ago
  You have a right for a private copy in Germany too, but you are not allowed to use software who can "delete security mechanisms"...that's why it is such a BS law.
nix23 5y ago
In Switzerland we have a law "right for private copy" and yes you have the right to crack the drm, it's not like that german perversion. Terms are not law, and are most terms are illegal in europe anyway.