Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Preps 'Janus' Music Copy-Prevention Scheme
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft is expected to unveil copy-protection software this summer that will for the first time give portable digital music players access to rented tunes from all-you-can-eat subscription services -- a development that some industry executives believe will shake up the online music business." Janus is the Roman god of doorways, gates, passages, preventing people from copying music, etc.
Happy Trails!
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
Pay for time limited, rental media? Has Circuit City's DIVX fiasco taught them nothing?
If there were a demand for such an item I can see them working on it but the media companies try these silly schemes that have no consumer interest. Naturally they'll end up somehow blaming P2P for this system's inevitable failure.
Trolling is a art,
Didn't we already learn that people don't want subscriptions, they want the actual media to keep for posterity?
"Nobody owns the fucking words man." - James Dean
Lest we forget, Janus is also two-faced.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
So to start with, you'll have to get a different player that supports this "secure clock". Then you have these issues:
Music service executives said they were still in negotiations with record labels over how to treat the new technology. Allowing people to bring thousands of songs at a time to portable players may wind up costing more than the $10 a month that most subscription services charge today, the executives said.
Well that's certainly going to help - keep up the level of confusuin with different rate plans based on what you might want to do.
Nevertheless, some music services are eager to drive more consumers to subscription plans, since per-song download stores have tiny or even nonexistent profit margins.
Because what always excites the consumer is helping a company make more money.
I would think artists would not be too fond of subscription services - they must get quite a bit less (if anything?) from such services. As someone who wants to help out an artist why would I want to support a subscription services? Seems like just another refined means of ripping off people who make the music.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Making bits uncopyable is like making water un-wet." -- Bruce S.
This is not the sig line you are looking for... -- Old Jedi Sig Line Trick
Yeah, right.
I remember those things from the 80s - never stopped C64 game sharing.
The owls are not what they seem
Has Apple iTunes been hacked yet? As in giving people un-encrypted, un-watermarked AAC files?
I can't see much good, when you can already buy tunes with iTunes and Napster and the like, for just $.99 per song. Can the price of a rented tune be that much less?
On a side note, unless they find a way to copy-protect sound waves, they will never be able to defeat copy protections. You can always play the song and record it in real time on an analog source.
Can you "disable it" by holding the shift key while inserting the cd?
I recently tried out the Wal-Mart 99c per song download and found it pretty cool, DRM and all. I was able to download to my work computer and then copy to my home computer (with the license). So both are viable in both locations.
The only downer is the fact that if you lose the licenses you're screwed.
Also worked on my MP3-player so I can take the song running.
The interesting note is I charged the song. So it ended up being 99c. This was the only charge for the month on my credit card. However, my balance for the month was zero! Wal-Mart had given me a 'Small Balance Credit' which I assume is that it's probably less of a loss (99c) then some transaction fee (several dollors) from the credit card company.
So I guess you get twelve free songs a year if you handle this correctly!
I don't want to rent...I want to OWN.
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
Society of Janus is a San Francisco based BDSM education/support group...
know what it is exactly you're consenting to when you click accept on EULA.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
Sounds more like a name of some diabolical, secret plot to rule the world.
...Maybe I've had too much caffeine recently.
"Launch project Janus!"
"You'll never get away with this!"
"I already have, Bond! Within minutes, the world will have no choice but to bow to my demands... or face the consequences."
"You fiend!"
A two-faced god that claims to stand between the primitive and civilization, but is in fact just a product of the primitive superstition of a decrepit culture.
Perfect.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
It should be really interesting to see how quickly this gets adopted. Like you say the model is really similar to DIVX and people in general just do not like rentals.
TV subscriptions are one thing because most shows are transient, and you can record forever the ones you like. But a music subscription offers no similar benefits, only an ongoing cost and limitations on use (can you burn real CD's with a subscription service?)
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Janus head is a popular phrase for deception, that is, when action does not match speech."
..or perhaps a very appropriate one?
So says Wikipedia
I read the article this morning, and sent to some friends. I have multiple problems with it.
..."
1) I don't want to "rent" my music. I want to buy.
2) I don't want my music in crappy WMA format.
3) The tinfoil hat wearer in me sees this as a way for the music/software industries to indoctrinate the next generation of consumers with the idea that you don't "own" anything.
As the sidebar in the article says "If fans of iPod-like devices can be convinced to drop the idea of owning song files, they could shift to paying a subscription fee for ongoing access
Pass.
www.robot-invasion.com smart-assed political news, humor, and commentary
Before MP3s were Satan, I had a stereo system (hi-fi for us old folks) that could easily "rip" CDs, records, or tapes to cheap portable media (blank tapes). It didn't seem to be an issue then...
I would actually be very interested in an all-you-can-eat music subscription, provided it gave me files in the MP3 format. I have an MP3 player in my house, office, car, and person, but I don't have a Janus player anywhere!
Stop spending all your money trying to stop me from sharing stuff, just sell me stuff I want.
:wq
Unless they've already developed a new, proprietary headphone, a high quality 1/8" to RCA cord already circumvents this. Or -hello- get it from the CD. This 'prevention' will only matter if they can actually get exclusive content that people want, and anything that can be listened to can be copied.
File this under "Too little; too late". If this was here 10 years ago it would have ruled the market, even 2 years ago before iPod/iTunes made legitimate music buying easy* it would have had a chance. Now it's just another unwanted product; at best a footnote in a future history book.
* I'm thinking specifically of when the iTunes Music Store came to Windows. To head off the 'no ogg/Linux support, so no business from me!' posts, that most assuredly applies to this new product as well and is pointless in a comparison.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
Step 1) Rent song.
Step 2) Put rented song on mp3 player.
Step 3) Go to Radio $hack, buy an adapter cable to connected mp3 output back into PC.
Step 4) Record song from Sound Card's 'Line In' using a high-quality program like Goldwave.
Step 5) Enjoy all the choonz you want for $10 / month.
Given that the system relies on a "secure clock" - it must be some kind of chip set with a time and then sealed with a battery. Otherwise, how can it continue to keep time independant of that player loosing battery power or knowledge of time?
So then - what happens when the power for this embedded secure-clock runs out? Your player needs to go in for repair, as I doubt the "secure clock" is user-servicable.
Or, perahps the chip just counts up as long as it has power. So if you only use it now and then you might be able to keep the song-embers alive for years as you slow time to the device.
I guess it won't matter since the system will be cracked before it becomes an issue, but it's kind of like buying a car with a pre-wired explosive charge under the hood set to go off in severeal years. "Not to worry!" the salesman says, "You'll have a different car in seven years anyway!".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Janus, the two faced god. They claim to help the users and then stab them in the back for the sake of the corporations.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
I would never get a subscription to view TV.. err... Ok i would never get a subscription to listen to satellite radio.. ummmmm
...its all around them.... i doubt they will balk about this..
.. but the general public is used to not being able to own anything anymore, to them its just one more monthly fee to 'get stuff'......
well id never get a subscription to drive my errr ummm car.... or live in my apartment..
The general public is used to subscriptions
*we* may refuse
---- Booth was a patriot ----
OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
So, is there any reason that this can't lead to "digital music libraries" where the songs are "checked out". This could make legal downloads nearly costless (like checking a book out from the public library). The only hurdle is to keep people from checking out copies for super-extended periods of time such that nobody else can check that copy out.
"To us, Janus finally provides the platform on which we can build a new type of experience for the consumer," said Zack Zalon, president of Virgin Digital, the British conglomerate's new online-music division. "We believe this is it. This is what consumers are going to want. We want to be big participant in changing consumers' attitude towards what music really is."
This is why online music purchasing is in such a sad state: it's because of people like this guy. He and others believe they can tell consumers (not "customers," not even "people," but "consumers") that the DRM widget du jour really is what they want when they look to buy music online. Screw what their customers actually ask for, and never mind that positive shopping experiences and word-of-mouth advertising are every bit as important as the profit made on any one purchase; it's obviously far better to license some new technology almost guaranteed to be broken within three months, shove it down the throats of unwilling customers, and pass on the costs.
Guess what, pal. We don't want a "new type of experience," or people "changing attitudes towards what music really is" (whatever that even means). Just offer us unencumbered MP3s at a buck a song, and watch people flock to your service. Is that so hard to understand?
the coolest club on
IMHO, the best online store out there is www.allofmp3.com. This company is Russian based, and because of their somewhat lax copyright laws and much more lenient recording industry, they offer non-encumbered downloads at cheap prices. Basically, the site is pay-for-bandwidth. If you download a song at 128kbps MP3, you essentially pay a penny per minute of audio.
The other awesome thing about that site is the ability to selecte your download format from WMA, MP3, OGG, FLAC, etc, plus the particular quality settings. For most downloads the audio is converted on the fly from a high quality archive (~400kbps), and for others it is actually converted directly from the CD-DA source. In "Advanced Mode", it's almost equivalent to selecting your command-line switches for the transcoder of your choice!
I'm in no way affiliated with these guys, but I love their service. It's actually faster and more reliable for me to download music from these guys than it is to try and venture out onto the P2P networks. Heck, for quality 7 OGG music, I'm paying roughly $0.02 CAD/minute. Plus, they let you pay with PayPal, so it's not like your sending your credit card info to some random Russians.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world > > Those who understand binary and those who don't
I'm surprised no one is mentioned that 100% uncrackable DRM: refusal to release.
If more record companies would simply *NOT RELEASE* music, there would be nothing to crack. In fact, I'd urge record companies to examine this carefully. Take Janet Jackson, for example. If they *refused to release* 'Damita Jo' -- or, better yet, refused to record it -- there would be nothing to crack, nothing to leak, and no filesharing problem.
The fact that record companies have recorded Damita Jo and actually released it indicates (to me, at least) that the record companies are as complicit in the problem as anyone else.
My two cents.
You raise an interesting point. DRM is always going to be hackable, so let's look at the incentives.
"Unlimited burns + no expiration + multiple devices + multiple computers = Not worth the trouble"
As you say, not much incentive to hack if you can do what you want with the downloads. Notice that this supports the theory that hacking DRM has nothing to do with "stealing" music; the real motivation is to defeat the crippling restrictions on usage.
Microsoft + expiration date + music drm = another hacker victory
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Just another work-around that ignores the underlying problem! The reason why these stores have nonexistent profit margins is because the Music Labels are taking 99% - 100% of the song price. And, as we all know, it's not because most of it is going to the artist.
The issues of song pricing and profit margin on a pay-per-download scheme is never going to be resolved in a way that benefits consumer and provider (i.e. music download service) until the greedy middleman of the RIAA is taken out of the picture.
Even if you agree with the "plight" of the music industry and the fact that they do make upfront expenditures on artists and need to reclaim those funds plus return on investment (hey this is still America, no one is investing money with no expectation of something in return) - there comes a point when enough is enough. Just because they took a chance and invested $2M in Britney Spears to start her career hardly justifies taking in 75% of her music profits until the end of time. (note: figures are made up, but you get the picture, I'm just too lazy to find the real numbers)
Even the problem of recovering upfront investments (much of which is lost on artists who do not take off) would be moot if the music industry would stop the practice of paying these fledgling artists millions upfront and just provide them the tools to get their careers started, laying the burden of success on the would-be artists, and then if they fail the company is out a couple dozen thousand instead of half a million.
Forcing end-users into subscription service plans creates waste and bloated pricing (just look at the cable industry's package plans) and is a finger-in-the-dyke solution, when really the problem is miles upstream.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
I'm reading the responses here, and I'm a bit apalled (sp?) at the number of people complaining that this won't work/is evil/ shouldn't be used.
Are you kidding me? You're going to give me anytime, anywhere access to over 400,000 songs for $10/month, and you complain? Man, I wish Apple would do this, because I would certainly pay for the service to use with my iPod. These subscriptions are marginally useful to a small group of people in their current form (work on CPU only). Give me a $10 subscription that I can use on my iPod, and I'll sign up tomorrow.
Who cares if it's DRM. It's a great value, and the type of service we've all been anticipating for many years. I hope Apple beats 'em to the punch!
I've been eagerly anticipating this for a while. Think about this - $10 a month for access to approximately all music ever recorded, as much as you want, wherever you want. Download every new release as it comes out - why not, it's free!
:-)
The rent vs. buy stuff seems like BS to me. It's like saying that HBO is worthless because you don't get access forever. Or people won't be willing to watch movies in a theater, because they don't actually end up owning anything. How many of you who are scoffing at this idea are Netflix subscribers?
I'll bet that the majority of CDs are listed to for a short time, and then filed away. So why clutter up your life with CDs that you won't listen to? And of course buying and renting music are not mutually exclusive, just as you can (gasp) rent DVDs and also buy them. Subscribing to a rental service doesn't prohibit you from also buying anything you want to listen to long-term.
OK Slashdotters, bring it on