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.'"

Comments

i bet

[bensafrickingenius]

"These rented songs can't be burned to CD and go silent if you stop paying the fees"

Oh reeeeely? We'll see.

Re:i bet

[rocjoe71]

Go to Radio Shack and run a patch cord from your soundcard to the soundcard of your friends computer.

...File this one under "If I can hear it, I can record it."

Re:i bet

[SparksMcGee]

Doubtless people are going to be having a lot of fun at MTV and Microsoft's expense, and a lot of good points will be made. But personally I think this is a reasonably solid business model if the selection is decent, and ultimately I think it'd be good for the market if this were widely adopted. I don't have moral objections to paying for music I like (necessarily), but even iTunes is IMHO a somewhat expensive proposition--I could likely rattle off 20 songs I like in 20 seconds, and there's $20 right there. It's great for individual songs, but it just can't hope to compete with the size of music library I'd personally like to accumulate. However, when you take off the song cap for a reasonable price (and I think 33 cents a day is pretty reasonable), you've piqued my interest pretty well. In essence, I think that this represents a reasonable lowering of prices to a point where I can actually get all the music I want as a consumer at a price that I don't consider absurd (goodness knows the RIAA has seemed reluctant enough to compromise on that last point).

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).

Re:i bet

[Willuknight]

Why complicate things. Download Audacity and record your stereo output.

Re:i bet

[Kamineko]

Shhh! Don't tell anybody, but there's these holes, right, at the back of the computer, yeah?

Audio comes -out- of one, right? Goes to your speakers.

Well, our informants in the underground scene have reported that you can use an top-of-the-line, cracker-produced, DRM-busting hyper-cable, and subtley 're-direct' the flow of audio, into an 'audio recording device'. Or, more ingeniously, back into the computer, and into an 'audio recording application'.

Mum's the word.

Re:i bet

[cgenman]

Try Hymm. There are mac and windows variants, as well as Java.

Or you can burn to CD, rip from CD, with no extra software required.

Or buy iTunes music through the Sharp Musique app, an iTunes store interface that simply skips the tawdry part where they encrypt and DRM the file.

Or use the older stuff, like QTFairUse, VLC Media Player, and PlayFair.

Re:i bet

[Ruff_ilb]

I don't think it's that no one CAN... I think it's that no one cares enough to even bother.

Considering the fact that high-quality, free music can be obtained without any sort of DRM cracking, there's really no incentive to crack the iTunes DRM system.

Re:i bet

[Joel from Sydney]

It's true -- I just signed up and purchased some John Cage tracks, and they've all gone silent!

Re:i bet

[complete loony]

Or there's Virtual Audio Cable which creates a fake sound card that lets you redirect it's output to another applications input.

Re:i bet

[clockwise_music]

Just make sure that you mute the record output (monitoring) level - otherwise you'll end up with a wonderful feedback loop!

It's actually more difficult than you might expect to be able to record your computers output - it actually would be an easier solution to use a second PC. Just make sure that you've got your equalizer set to something reasonably flat, otherwise you'll have too much bass and treble.

Pretty funny how we've now come full circle - doesn't this remind you of the tape trading days? Next thing you know we'll be playing back + recording sounds at twice the speed (so that you could tape an album in half the time...) - ahh, those were the days. Made it easier to slow down a fast guitar solo :)

Re:i bet

[andreyw]

I second this. I, in fact, did this very same thing to get rid of some DRM. Yes, I recorded with an insane sampling rate, and I encoded at a pretty high rate.. and honestly? It sounds good enough. Was it worth it? Hard to say. I hate that tune now and I can't stand listening to it anymore. Can you do it? Yes.

How is this a new twist?

[WalterGR]

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.'

How is this a "new twist"? Listen Rhapsody has been using this model for years.

Re:How is this a new twist?

[Hawthorne01]

Umn, it's a new twist because a music channel that doesn't play music anymore slapped their label on it! It'l have all the success previous subscription-based music services have had, and more! You'll, um, get exclusive behind-the-scenes look at the new season of RealWorld vs. RoadRules vs. Reality! You'll get exclusive whiney outtakes from teens who think that $100k for a sweet 16 party is the very minimum!! You'll get all this, and more, for only $9.95 a month! That is, until we decide to raise the price to $19.95 a month, and you'll have to pay it, or your precious music goes bye-bye! Mawhahahahahah!!!!!

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.

Should be called "Purge"

[myth_of_sisyphus]

As in, I stopped paying my bill, and now all my music is "purged" from my computer.

sigh

[yagu]

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:

• my vinyl and CDs played on my downstairs turntable and CD player, and my upstairs equipment.
• and played in my car (the CDs)
• and at my friends' houses
• and could be ripped to computers and played on mp3 players.
• were simple (though even ripping got more complicated)

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.

What's the logic here?

[Gothic_Walrus]

Please tell me they're not seriously expecting this to compete with iTunes.

Even with MTV and Microsoft pushing it together, I think that the fact that you can't burn the music is going to turn away most of their potential customers. People are stupid, but given the choice between owning DRMed music that you can burn or renting it and watching it all vanish when you stop paying...well, I'd hope that people aren't that stupid.

Re:What's the logic here?

[ozmanjusri]

Please tell me they're not seriously expecting this to compete with iTunes.

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.

Re:What's the logic here?

[WalterGR]

People are stupid, but given the choice between owning DRMed music that you can burn or renting it and watching it all vanish when you stop paying...well, I'd hope that people aren't that stupid.

I subscribe to Rhapsody, so I guess I am that stupid.

I know some people feel very... passionately... about "renting" music rather than "owning" it. But I like having access to thousands upon thousands of tracks that I can listen to at any time. Rhapsody has two million tracks.

Am I going to listen to all two million? Of course not. But I have extremely varied tastes and like exploring new music. Last week I was listening to my favorite indie tracks, then I got bored. So I started checking out world music - African, Caribbean, Brazilian. Then I got bored and listened to some hip-hop. Then I got bored and listened to some music from Rent.

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.

But that's ok, call me stupid. ;)

Re:What's the logic here?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Why does it matter whether you can "burn" an audio CD? For music, you may as well use a Bic lighter. Portable audio players are so dang small and can hold a hundred albums in a third the volume of a single CD jewel case, such that there is no point in CDs except as a purchase medium.

It is clearly a subscription service and shouldn't be treated as if that is the only choice you get, you can still buy single tracks or buy physical CDs. You trade "buying" 10-15 CDs a year (though you can still buy if you like) for the ability to legally sample any of a few million tracks at any time without having to commit to buying them, and still get to time-shift. To me, that sounds like a decent trade-off.

I don't think a subscription service where you get to subscribe to a huge library for dirt cheap and you get to download what ever you want and keep them forever is a viable business model. I understand basic psychology, people would subscribe for a month for the cost of a single CD and acquire a library of a lifetime and unsubscribe. What you want seems to be the have-your-cake-and-eat-it variety, which frankly, makes you seem a lot like how the RIAA behaves.

Yo!MTV Craps

[ystar]

I have the URGE to avoid this.

Re:Oops! Someone Didn't Proofread (bad Enter key)

[w9ofa]

someonoe

Not only do I declare you a grammar Nazi, I also declare you a spelling Frenchman.

psh..

[zx-15]

Microsoft imposing its own proprietary standards using dominant position in OS market... Such a cliche

Salesforce.com

[thealsir]

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.

Lousy Article; misses a real problem with Urge

[MBraynard]

The writer probably was unfamiliar with the other services that have been out for over a year that have the same offering - Napster, Yahoo Unlimited, and several others.

What Urge is missing - and what I was looking forward to - was a low low intro price for the first year. I got the first year of Yahoo - including to go - for $60.

Also, Urge is more expenensive than Yahoo as you can get the non-to-go version for only $5 at Yahoo rather than $10 at Urge.

All the other complaints in the article - old news. Either the PlayforSure thing is for you or it isn't.

Why certainly!

[TheSpoom]

I believe you would be looking for the Hymn project.

And just for shits and giggles, you could use FreeMe or DRM2WMV for Windows Media 10 DRM'd files.

Trust me, cracking 11 is just a matter of time.

Not so much...

[nobodynoone]

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.

Re:Not so much...

[swordgeek]

What you're proposing would be a HUGE benefit for the consumer, a great win for the musician, and a disaster for the recording industry. The fighting, incompatible formats, backwards compatability issues, DRM, all help generate profit for the companies. That's the real reason they don't get together.

When CDs first came out, the cry was "perfect sound forever." When audiophiles started to complain about the sound quality, the industry claimed that they were hearing things (with the exception of the high-end, who sold insane CD players). Now that the CD is standard and players are zero-profit commodities, they need to come up with a new format which forces people to buy new gear and replace all of their music again. Enter SACD and HDCD. Suddenly, the very people that used to tell us that CDs are perfect, are now claiming that the new format(s) are MUCH better sounding than crappy old CDs.

None of this is intended to benefit the consumer or the musician. Let me repeat that: None of this is intended to benefit the consumer or the musician!" The music industry exists for no reason other than making money, and the most efficient way of doing that is to screw the consumer.

Re:That's sick.

[east coast]

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.

Re:When I hear the name 'Urge', I think of...

[lxs]

Interesting. When I hear "Urge", I think of someone badly needing to use the toilet.

Re:Resonable price is not renting

[Scaba]

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.