Slashdot Mirror
Windows Media Player 11 and Urge
j0e_average writes "The Washington Post is running a review of Microsoft's next version of Media Player, and its integration with MTV's new music service Urge. According to reviewer, Rob Pegoraro, 'Not only does this new, Windows XP-only software promote Urge to the exclusion of other retailers, you can't shop at this store-- or even just play your Urge downloads -- in any earlier version of Windows Media Player.' The Microsoft/Urge subscription model contains a new twist as well: 'Urge also lets you rent songs: $9.95 a month (or $99 a year) lets you download all the tracks you want to a computer, while $14.95 ($149 a year) lets you transfer those downloads to most newer Windows Media-compatible players. These rented songs can't be burned to CD and go silent if you stop paying the fees.'"
Music should be simple to enjoy. Music doesn't need safeguarding the way the industry jealously guards their Jewel Crowns.
I do "support" outside my everyday professional experience for family and friends, and describing "how to" is a minefield and Media Player 11/Urge don't help.
I've not verified what the article says, but the warning is WMP11 is more than an update, it's an upgrade, i.e., the only way to recover from it to previous versions is with System Restore. WTF?
I guess that helps me decide, I'm not going to load it, I'm going to steer anyone who's interested away from it, and anyone who has questions about it, I'll turn away.
I won't single out Microsoft for the miserable state of music and the ability to enjoy today. Everyone seems to be trying their best to squeeze money from entertainment. I'm not opposed to paying for entertainment, but I come from an older generation where:
I remember early on with CDs the promise of things to come. Heck, my first CD player actually had a DIN connector on the back of it which was referenced in the manual only as "for future use". I dreamed of liner notes running to the TV, lyrics, lots of cool stuff. It never happened.
And when did album info become available? When the public contributed it via the early public CDDB database. That was a great thing, but was (and still is) fraught with errors and the fickleness of description by the first contributor in.
This was the first of many betrayals by the music industry, and I've not seen any push back that looks promising.
WMP11 is just one more non-contributor to the music-enjoying demographic. They're all selling themselves as providing an entertainment "experience". They're all full of shit.
...File this one under "If I can hear it, I can record it."
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
While this may be an option to extract data from drm'ed music, there are far easier ways of obtaining free music. My point was that one on has been able to strip the drm from the music files and most likely do it with urge either.
My guess is this won't be perfect--I have certain reservations about MTV as a distributor, inasmuch as I have no basis for assuming that they'll be competent and, given the performance of other services (a la Napster) the burden of proof is on them. Nevertheless, despite points to the contrary, I believe that this is unquestionably a step in the right direction. It represents a value to the consumer and, moreover, some real competition in the ITMS/iPod dominated digital music market--who knows, it might even persuade people that there are reasonable alternatives to a $400 piece of music-playing hardware(not that I'm claiming the iPod is a bad product, but it's Apple--charing a premium for hardware is what they DO).
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Somehow, people think the subscription model works. But, I don't see this being offered with Movies on demand. The closest thing is Netflix, but even then, it's only possible to get so many a month.
I think the appeal of having EVERYTHING at the tips of ones fingers is neat, but in reality, people don't listen to EVERYTHING. I mean, of the ten thousand plus songs I have, I listen to like 100 regularly......
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
It will be the default install for 95% of computers sold.
That's the great benefit of owning a monopoly. You can use it to dominate markets you wouldn't normally have a hope of even competing in.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
1) Do you really want to fulfill Godwin's law so quickly? (one message?)
"Godwin's law" (which the term itself I hate) is so stupid that it's a shame that it's even still mentioned anywhere.
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving any subject matter approaches one.
It's just plain foolishness that people invoke "Godwin's law" to defend themselves.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Looks like the teasing from the CEO of CRM got microsoft in a squeeze. Subscription this, subscription that. People aren't going to be too warm and fuzzy to the idea of having to pay continuous fees just to listen to music. I mean, a lot of music you just listen to off and on, and paying over and over again just seems absurd.
Electricity, water, resources that have fixed, continuous costs, that makes sense in the consumer's eye....but software? Music? Digital stuff with practically zero reproduction cost? This is what drives people to piracy...they can't visualize the need for software et al to have continuous fees...it feels like extortion.
Despite how justified/neat business model it may be, that's what the average person deep down thinks. RIAA et al do not understand this. MSFT seems to have followed the same path.
Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
Dear Mr. Clueless,
Freedom rarely deteriorates in one overhyped WMD hunting spree. The more usual path involves enormously wealthy corporations and people nudging the public's expectaions of freedom down a notch in return for something "free or easy."
When gas is $4 a gallon, and all content on all media is rented and controlled by large corporations, and your college textbooks are inaccesible because you missed a payment maybe it will come into focus. The year may be 2008. If this generation doesn't wake up to these realities, you'll be the 47 year old virgins sitting in your basements sipping brocoli milkshakes singing "I'm and Oscar Meyer Weiner."
Sincerely,
Old timer (who used to take his gun to school every day for rifle shooting competitions)
$14.95 ($149 a year) lets you transfer those downloads to most newer Windows Media-compatible players.
So-- most, but not all, "newer" WMA-compatible players, eh? Well that means that some of those newer players won't be compatible, and chances are that those newer ones were stickered with the "Plays For Sure" logo.
"Plays For Sure," indeed. Looks like we're right back to the usual Microsoft way- "It should work, but it might not, but if it doesn't we don't know why, but it's not our fault."
This smells alot like Napster.... Even the same pricing! However napster gives you 5 free listens!
At least with the $0.99/track pricing model, I know that music is mine, no matter what the RIAA and Apple decide is a fair price 5 years down the road.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
To be honest at first when I read this I scoffed but I'm not sure it's that bad of an idea. Granted, I have a large CD collection and wouldn't do this but for the types that don't mind putting their cash towards subscription radio is this that much different? 10 bucks a month and you get to "create your own playlist" essentially. How much is XM or Sirius? If this service has a wide selection it really won't be that much different and the fact that you can hear the song you want when you want makes it more valuable than satellite radio.
There is a large segment of the public that doesn't want to put the cash down for a serious music collection and this could be their way of getting a wide selection without the price tag on a large permanent music collection.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
I am SO TIRED of all this DRM crap. Everything - and I mean EVERYTHING - has some sort of incompatible, misconfigured, hard-to-use "Rights Management" software/encryption/whatever. DVDs have CSS, Displays have HDCP, Music has Fairplay/WMP, and the list continues. Is any of this really designed to "protect the product"? No! It is designed to protect the profit margin of the record/film company.
None of the aformentioned technologies were designed with the end-user in mind. Did anybody at Microsoft/URGE even sit down and think about whether or not their customers really wanted to be tied yet another proprietary format that works only with a certain manufacturer's proprietary player? Lets face it, the iPod/iTunes interface only works because the iPod's particular proprietary format has become not-so-proprietary because more than half of the Audio Players out there are iPods, and can use Fairplay'd songs.
Here is what I want. An easy-to-use, universal encryption scheme everyone can agree on. Make it burnable. Make it sharable. Make it brain-dead simple. Make all of the record companes pledge their unwavering support. Heck, Make it 4096-bit RSA if you really want to. Then make it easy to use, and have all new audio players - Apple, Dell, Creative, MS, etc - support it. Then drop the price to 49 cents a song and $5.99 a record, and watch your profits SOAR. Why would they soar? Because at those prices, with those features, and those major names backing it, nobody would really feel like hunting on a Gnutella network for a decent-quality version of their favorite John Tesh song. People would willingly buy the audio player they liked, because they could use their songs on all of them. Illegal song sharing would largely dry up. Record companies would be happy. OEMs would be happy. I would be happy.
Just my (slightly more than) 2 cents.
I think it's a perversion, and copyright laws especially for music should be repealed.
Well, when you get it done let me know.
Musicians should go back to making money the old fashioned way, performing.
Actually, many of them made music from selling sheet music. Besides, at the time if you wanted to hear a song you had to go hear them play it, today with recording media that's no longer the case. So what you're saying, essentially, is that if a musician wants to make money he needs to perform it while you have the "right" to record, copy and redistribute at will? if that's the case they won't make much from concerts either as their live recordings will be spread world wide before he can even get to his second gig! that's not a good business model for the musician and what would you do then? you'd make professional music profitless and you'd have a fine selection of garage bands but quality music would diminish if not die out.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Can't you just burn it to a CD say for archival purposes and re-rip? Most people won't notice and re-compresion difference unless you're an audiophile and if you're an audiophile, you wouldn't be buying from iTunes anyway.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
I have history to back me up. Some of the finest music, art and literature was made in a time where copyright did not exist at all.
Yeah, at the time when there was no recordings and no digital distribution. Even tho these both involved music you're really talking apples and oranges. The entire idea of recording music changed everything.
I think it would weed out the people who only want to make money at it, and leave the people who have a passion for it.
I honestly don't care what the musicians motivation is if the music is good. You may feel that's not right but it is the way I feel and I'm willing to pay for it either way.
You have to realize, that MP3's are the best advertising any musician can get if they're only making money off of gigs.
If they go. And what about artists that produce but don't tour or don't want to tour? should they be left in the cold? does their music lose value because they don't want to/can't tour? And if your arguement is true why do so many musicians fight bootlegging? And yes, I know of many artists who are against bootlegging, not just their record labels.
Got any other corporate memes you would like me to dispel?
Uh, you haven't dispelled anything. I think if you create something you should have rights to that creation. It has nothing to do with corporate anything, I think an artist has a right to control their creation. You don't like it? Don't support the artists who do!
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
> In a given week, I'll listen to hundreds of different tracks - most of
> them brand new to me. How much do I pay? About $12.
Yes, there are folks to whom having a near-universal jukebox at
their fingertips sounds like just the kind of neat dedicated
service they'd pay for. These folks will not be dissuaded by
the inability to burn and possess forever each and every track
they may have wanted to hear once or five times. The presence
of DRM per se will not be a problem for them. There are plenty
of applications for this kind of service and I trust the market
will find them, as it has found you.
However, if this target audience values convenience,
selection, or just has a short attention span, and if
the same DRM is clunky, frustrating, demanding of
time and attention, or any number of other things Microsoft
DRM has proven to have wrong with it at this point in time,
they may find in short order that Urge doesn't cut it in
practice.
DRM isn't just evil - it's often a drag on the consumer experience.
CDs require me to pay for a lot of songs that I may or may not like, just to get the one or two that I do like. iTunes tries to tell me what I can do with something I bought. Neither is a good option and therefore I'll buy neither.
You claimed control "is the whole point of copyright in the first place." I claim it is not. I think we both agree it has been perverted from its original purpose (notably by the term extension from 14 years to up to 120+ years), but the original purpose was to encourage, through financial incentive of limited term monopoly, the creation and duplication of creative works so they would enter the public domain and raise the overall cultural IQ, hence the name "copyright." If its purpose was to control who can and cannot view/listen/whatever to a creative work, it would have been called "controlright" or some other silly name.
What do you do for a living? How can you waste so much time preaching to the choir?