Slashdot Mirror
Zune's Viral DRM Will Violate Creative Commons
lopy writes "Medialoper has noted that Zune's highly touted wireless file sharing will infect otherwise unprotected audio files with proprietary DRM. In cases where users are sharing songs covered by any of the Creative Commons licenses, this would be a clear violation of those license. From the CC FAQ: 'If a person uses DRM tools to restrict any of the rights granted in the license, that person violates the license.' It'll be interesting to see how and if the CC community responds." An anonymous reader wrote in mentioning a post to the Crave blog, relatedly exploring how the Zune stacks up to the iPod.
Fool me once, shame on me.
With DRM, Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, and the usual cast of characters, it's "fool us a billion times...", it doesn't seem to matter, they keep throwing this kind of foolishness our way.
I guess the good news about this is the silly layer of DRM adds that more assuredness the Zune will be a miserable also ran in the market.
Users will get over the cool factor quickly, especially when the favorite song someone shared with them stops playing three days later. Yeah, there's probably documentation. Who reads it?
I don't see any ads for this device touting "share your tunes three times or three days, whichever comes first!" to catchy music. If I were to buy one of these (not) anticipating the magic of wireless sharing I would return it immediately on learning the fine (hwah?, not so fine?) print.
And, what other silly DRM is layered? I wonder (and almost suppose) Microsoft further encumbers shared songs a la making a song shared by someone unshareable by a sharee...
And, if Microsoft wanted to limit the listening, why so Draconian a limit? WTF? If a tune has any texture, any depth, any insight at all, it can take a lot more than three listens to develop an ear for that song. Too bad. Clearly this is not the era to be exposing listeners to Beethoven or Mozart.
As for my part, I now freely distribute copies of music from my collection to any who want them. I always verbalize the disclaimer they must buy if they like with a wink and a nod. I know now my good faith efforts before were empty gestures. (I even refused in the past to let my daughters make tapes of CDs for their friends, not any more...)
This is all really too bad, because it could be interesting use of technology. Not really my cup of tea (I've posted on this earlier, responses to my post convinced me there could be some market for this).
It's time to sue Microsoft for contibutory and vicarious infringement for doing this. Use the Grokster case as precedent. It's time the pro-DRM side got a taste of their own legal medicine.
Zune accomplishes this amazingly stupid feat by wrapping shared music in a proprietary layer of DRM, regardless of what format the original content may be in. If Microsoft's claims are to be believed, this on-the-fly DRM will be seamless and automatic - which must be some kind of first for Microsoft.
This story should be pulled immediately! Slashdot does not tolerate cheap shots towards Microsoft
what sharecropping is to realestate ownership. It's just that simple.
Am I the only one who thinks that it violates the spirit of Creative Commons to turn end-listeners into lawbreakers?
This isn't why artists license their works using CC, and it's the same BS that the RIAA tries to enforce.
CC licenses exist to protect against large-scale systematic explotiation by commercial entities or other organizations. To say that an individual is somehow breaking the license by playing a song over a wireless interface is counter-productive.
...if all the people with CC-licensed content could sue Microsoft into submission. Too bad it's impossible, since even the US Government backed down...
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It'd be nice to see the BSA helping enforce Creative Commons licenses by going after all the end-users who add DRM to Creative Commons licensed content.
We should be sure to report the cases to them whenever we see them. After all, they do say they're all about enforcing copyright and licenses, which CC certainly counts as.
Or are they just thugs who selectively enforce stuff for their own extortion racket?
The FAQ on the article basically does not allow a person to distribute a creative commons work that has been modified with DRM. Microsoft is doing no such thing. While their software will DRM-ify the song, it is the end user who is using the Zune as the mechanism of distribution. Clearly the works are available without the DRM, as the original user got the song in the first place. This seems to me to be an issue of a transport layer. If you know Microsoft will always DRM, and you try to use this mechanism to distribute CC'd licensed works, then perhaps you are the one who is in violation of the license.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Considering all the FUD that gets commentary and analysis about MS and Vista recently, it would be nice to know exactly where he got the information that Zune would also wrap non-WMA, non-DRMed files in a DRM layer.
Does it really do that? Anyone have a source?
From the sound of the article, this is only implemented for the wireless sharing feature and not for all media, so you'll still be able to send these files to each other, unencrypted, with no adverse effects. It just won't work over wireless.
As for the CC-licensed content, the original data is still available, unhampered by DRM.
It's unfortunate that the link to the previous analysis is broken in the article. For something like this, it really helps to have more facts.
Assuming the Zune allows violation of the Creative Commons license in this way, who is liable? Is it Microsoft, for making the device, or the user, for distributing Creative Commons-licensed material in a way that's incompatible with its license?
Wow, they actually managed to kill the product before it hit the market. Nobody will buy this.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
What is it with Microsoft trying infect everything with a virus? Sheesh... Bad enough they're an monopoly, now they want to be the Borg and eat their cake too.
I personally would recommend an Ipod over this DRM monster, but well-meaning relatives may inflict this on you in celebration of Christ's birth or whatever.
In this case, possibly the only way to survive this player may be a community produced firmware replacement. Its been done for the ipod and many other devices already.
If not then there are always the post-Christmas ebay auctions...
My little Linux and tech blog
Ok let me take a poll
How many people will buy a zune ?
Ok of those select few, how many have CC content they are or were planning to put on the zune ?
Is anyone's hand up? Furthermore, it would be the end users that would violate the CC license, not microsoft. I can violate the licence today with Microsoft Media Player. Why doesn't CC sue microsoft for allowing users to violate the licese that way? Zune just makes it easier to violate the licese CC doesn't have a say and doens't ahve a leagal leg to stand on. The whol anti DRM thing on slashdot has gotten way out of hand. There are many artists who awnt this kind of protection for their music. They are stuggling to make ends meet and tak to fans who tell them they burned copies of their cd's and gave them to all their friends. These bands are on INDEPENDANT labels, not covered by RIAA. Its an option, let people choose to use it or not use it. Microsoft added a feature that previously didn't exist amoung mp3 players and wanted to make sure that no one used it to violate the artists rights. It just means that you will have to distrubute CC licences files some other way, possibly the same way you are doing right now!
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Their thinking is likely: "You shouldn't have any content that you didn't pay us for!"
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
I appologise for not remembering where I saw/heard this but in the last 24 hours I saw a comment that made a lot of sense with regards to the Zune and the 3 day/play rule. This feature is not meant as a convenience of the user so they can share their music with others. Its a feature of the marketing people so they can virally encourage you to buy more.
Imagine a bunch of kids at school. The first one buys a track from the Zune store, shares it around to all his/her friends, creates interest in the cool tune. And then *poof* the music vanishes. So what do all the friends do? The head off to the Zune store to buy buy buy.
From that perspective the feaure makes a great lot of sense.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Do people really want to share music in this way? I mean, when I am with a friend who has a cool song on the iPod, I just listen to it on their iPod, if i like it, I write it down and buy it. choice made. Yeah, it requires a pen instead of "marking it" to buy in the Zune market place...
but what if the Zune market place doesn't have the freaking song? As the article suggests, some music isn't required to be paid for...so why should I be limited to share it three time?
Microsoft's solution: you can't! They said in the Zune announcement that shareing will be possible for "some" songs - want to make a bet as to wether non-DRM songs count as "some"?
Worse, I don't see this as a feature to force a platform buying decision. It's like choosing Linux because of the icons. You may have a preference, but there are much larger features that have a massive impact.
Apple DOES HAVE a solution for sharing files...they allow bloggers to post playlists with links directly to the music store. You can discover music, sample it as much as you like, then buy it in a click. _for me_ this is a better solution. Your milage may vary.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Given that no DRM I've yet heard of has been able to stand up against a bunch of people willing to crack it, does anyone think the Zune might gain a cult following if someone should manage to disable the 3-day/3-play limit on the songs? Or even the DRM wrapper that adds DRM to the songs that don't have it? Because a DRM-less Zune actually sounds like a good idea. Hackers, get to it!
A big problem is that many media companies and companies like Microsoft don't really believe that copyright license like CC and the GPL are "real" licenses. These companies believe that there is really nothing backing these kind of license up, and while the little people may get pissed off, no one has the resources to come after them. It's going to take a court case to make these people pay attention to Open Source licenses.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
You know what, I was actually pretty thrilled by the Zune coming out originally. However, if this is really true that they tend to use DRM in such an underhanded manner, they can expect no such purchases from me. The funny thing is that it was about time to upgrade my wifes mp3 player (iPon Mini), and I was contemplating purchasing one for her for Christmas.
That is certainly not the kind of Christmas gift I would feel comfortable giving to her though. I guess I'd better go update the Zune post on my blog.
I have to admit, I am really disappointed hearing that they would attempt something like this.
Justin - Don't be afraid of my blog, it won't bite.
That this product in and of itself will not prosper.
On the other hand, someone will find a way to hack a better , more open OS onto it, using it's hardware capabilities. And they will have a hit.
Or MS will abandon it and whoever is doing the OEM manufacture of the hardware will sell it to a company wiloling to put an open OS on it.
I can always dream and hope.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
As far as I know, the Creative Commons license has not been solidified yet in a court of law. I think this would be a good precedent to make this a real legal document.
...Zune of Borg. Lower your firewalls and prepare to be accessed. Your audio and video uniqueness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile.
TLR
A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
This is no less than vandalism and theft of potentially free music. What about private recordings which is without the user's consent mangled and will be unusable in three days? A worst-case scenario is when the clean audio file is deleted because "someone else has a backup of it".
This just have to flop. The average user can't be so stupid that s/he accepts this humbug.
or the **AA would have had to sue the hell out of them. The ultimate nightmare for a **AA executive is a "college Zune party." A bunch of people get together, swap a ton of music/movies/etc., and leave. No torrents, web servers, or IP addresses to list in a lawsuit or threatening letter to a college administrator. Microsoft would have been guilty of enabling illegal file sharing/IP theft without this DRM wrapper.
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
It seems that most of you would rather see this wireless sharing eleminated rather then just having the song unplayable after three listens. It also seems the only reason you are so against it is because Microsoft is behind it.
and their beliefs regarding the media they own.
1 07881 it's an attack on the mp3 file.
1 06206 the objective is to maintain a level of fear of being labeled a "criminal" so the consumer blindly obeys regardless of any pre-existing well-established legal precedent.
As pointed out here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=196589&cid=16
As mentioned here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=196480&cid=16
The current zeitgeist in the U.S. is "criminals" are the only people in the U.S. that have anything to worry about. In this environment, your neighbor may be one of these RIAA criminals.... So it's good there is domestic surveilance.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Who's going to enforce CC? We've already told MS that their Windows EULA is an unenforcable joke, so now were going to get all upity about a license no one's ever heard of??
Frankly, MS bashing is played out and has basically taught everyone that software licenses mean nothing. Too bad for CC.
Maybe MS will just make Zune aware of some CC flag in the file, and not DRM those.
This would be great, as it would make it exceedingly simple to circumvent the DRM on all files
I agree with the parent, but I'll add my own thoughts.
If Microsoft were to allow wireless sharing without DRM, then it would be used for open-piracy of songs, this is quite clear.
The purpose of the wireless sharing feature is to allow a friend to sample a song and then obtain it himself if he likes it (many slashdotters have tried to justify their own P2P piracy by saying that they're only doing it to sample the songs, and "I buy the ones that I like; I really do!!"). So, MS wraps a song shared via wireless in DRM that allows the song to be played for 3 plays/3 days (I think they should up this to 5, myself), and if the "sharee" likes it, he can obtain a non-DRM version himself. Now, for non-CC tracks, this might mean buying the CD or buying the song from the Zune store, etc. For a CC track, it would mean obtaining the free non-DRM version from wherever it's available.
Now, as for violationg the CC-license, the CC song is still available freely, and this sharing of CC songs might even help the song to get spread to others. If anyone does make a legal fuss over this, MS will simply put up a disclaimer to the user: "The wireless-sharing feature is NOT to be used to share CC songs", and that will be that.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
1. The Zune is a tool, it's the person sharing the song that actually breaks the CC license. You may be able to go after MSFT for contributing to the Zune owner's breach, but you can't ignore the Zune owner. And I'm willing to bet that MSFT has deeper pockets than you, or the Zune owner.
2. Damages (punative/trebel) are based on some multiple of the actual damages. When you give away a song for free, what are the actual damages?
Sigh.
music, and only for the Publishers that allow it. The whole purpose of the feature is to give people a teaser and then prompt them to buy it from the Marketplace. They can only do that reliably if the song came from the Zune Marketplace in the first place.
Without sharing, most independent bands might as well not exist, because noone knows about them.
From a CNN article:
t .zune.ap/index.html
"Microsoft said the song-sharing capability will be available for most songs available through its forthcoming Zune Marketplace service, although some music publishers won't allow it."
This would seem to indicate that you cannot share other songs from your collection, which would include your CC licensed songs - therefore no CC license violations would occur.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/ptech/09/15/microsof
"Sued for millions?" You have to prove damages. What are the damages here in monetary terms? Zero.
It's quite sad that you guys are calling for lawsuits that would result in one of two things: 1. Removing the sharing feature altogether (many of you would love that just to stick it to MS, but you'd be screwing over Zune's users in the process); 2. much more likely, MS would just add a disclaimer telling the user, "The sharing feature is NOT to be used to share CC files" (like the various DVD/CD copying programs have a disclaimer, "This software is not to be used to violate the copyright of protected works").
You guys will accomplish nothing significant with this ridiculous "suit".
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
That sort of "one generation only" DRM is just as broken as all other types of it; it suffers from the same terminal flaws, namely that you can't well restrict the copying of data once it's been moved into the digital realm, where copying is inherent to even the most basic manipulations of the data (i.e., moving it from one place to another).
Just because it doesn't prevent all copies doesn't make it any less flawed from an inherent information-theory and cryptological standpoint, and in the long run I think it's doomed to failure. The only question is whether, in failing, it manages to take down a few otherwise-good formats with it.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Good! Maybe that'll teach them not to buy Microsoft's SHIT!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
they head to their friends house to get the song again for 3 days (and if you're a guy and you get it from a girl, so much the better :) ). two weeks later of doing this you're tired of the song, and away we go. We can only hope it works out this way.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
With wireless devices becoming more popular everyday, it's only a matter of time before there's an MP3 player with wireless adhoc network capability to transfer files. As it stands, I can already with my wired connection and my archos player transfer files via wire to other players without lame DRM or other interference. Which is really neat when you want to share something with someone who has a MP3 player that is classified under USB mass-storage. It's only a matter of time before free wireless sharing between 3rd party players emerges. I was almost 100% certain MS would screw this up somehow, and it looks like they did quite a job of it. The possibilities are cool, but with the DRM, very limited. And you can bet I'd be looking elsewhere for my next player.
I suppose it's to be expected, these are the same people that went out of their way to store Media Center files in a proprietary format making it almost impossible to watch on Linux or just about any other computer. What a shame.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
Quite simply, the user who shares Creative Commons licensed material will be in violation of the license. Microsoft will have nothing to worry about, this is unfortunately a problem for the Creative Commons community.
I was actually pretty thrilled by the Zune coming out originally. However, if this is really true that they tend to use DRM in such an underhanded manner...
... ON RYE!!!
Jesus Fvcking Christ! You nutters get me some days. I mean really. Reading the above line cements the suspicion that common man cannot save himself from the apocalypse. Microsoft serves nothing but giant shitburgers on rye and here's some ass clown going "I was thinking about eating one of those but not if it isn't really peanut butter."
No it's not peanut butter. It never was peanut butter. It never will be peanut butter. IT'S A SHIT BURGER!!!
My god man, this is Microsoft we're talking about. Are you the Goatse guy or what?
Actually, Microsoft does believe that CC is a "real" license. They've released works themselves under CC (specs and accompanying code). (And they also believe that GPL is "real", that's why they take pains to stay clear of any GPL code (employees aren't allowed to even look at GPL code).)
Now, regarding the complaint that Zune's sharing feature violates the CC license, the solution is easy (from Microsoft's standpoint), and won't be what you guys are after (whatever that is; I don't know if you want the sharing feature removed altogether, or want it to be without DRM, knowing that such would lead to open piracy). Microsoft is merely making a device that allows sharing of songs through a mechanism that includes DRM, just as Roxio (for example) makes DVD/CD copying software that allows copying of optical discs. Roxio has a disclaimer, "This software is not to be used to violate copyrights"; MS will just add a disclaimer, "This device is not to be used to violate CC license, therefore it is not to be used to share CC songs". If the user then ignores that disclaimer, then it's on them, not Roxio or Microsoft. Problem solved.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
They are not preventing you from obtaining the creative commons file by other means. They are just not allowing you to transfer it over zune wireless.
Let's look at some analogies.
I have the file on our shared disk in my home directory. You can see that it's there. but the protection on it is 660 and you are not in my group. So tough beans you can't play it. everyone in my group can. You just can't access it by my file server mechainsism because you don't have the password to unlock my files. Did I just DRM the file? No.
A bunch of people give my company some things for safe keeping. Some of them look like they might be unpublished manuscripts or confidential internal company documents. But I don't honestly know what they are. I'm allowed to look at them, and so are my employees. But I can't just share this with anyone. Maybe I can. But I don't know and better safe than sorry. So I lock them up.
Anyhow analogies suck, I know. The point is, that disallowed a file transfer is by some method does not break the creative commons as long as the file is available another way.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Hell yeah! That's why, when I want to share my tunes with the people around me, I just bring my boombox with me on the bus. I don't even have to turn it up all the way and they can hear it all the way to the front seats.
Breakfast served all day!
What Microsoft is doing with the Zune is something new to the market... yes you can only play a shared song for three days, but at least you can share the song to begin with! Apple doesn't have a feature like this, and it's something I'm looking forward to. If a buddy has a song, I can wifi it over to my zune, check it out, and even if the zune store or whatever it's called doesn't have it, I still have the info on my device and can find the song from another provider. When the iPod was first mentioned on slashdot, it got hammered as being too expensive, too unwieldly, blah blah blah... now, since it's Microsoft, the same crowd is crowing about how great the iPod is and how no one will ever buy this. Sorry folks, innovation is good for all consumers. Get behind it.
So I can't really imagine that anyone is going to actually use the Zune, but what about Apple, and in particular the Airport Express and the Airport AV (aka iTV)?
iTV: the Killer App for Wireless N
Both use enryption to tunnel your tunes (and soon your videos) to another basestation. Will Creative Commons be pissed off that their content is protected as it travels throught users' homes?
What about VPN? Will Creative Commons be upset to find that nobody can copy their stuff as it scatters through the tubes of the Interweb in a bunch of encrypted chunks that are entirely impossible to reuse and adapt, from a client to their workplace?
And of course, What about Bob? And think of the children, etc.
They are screwed either way:
If they prevent sharing more than once or twice, kids will finally understand what DRM trully means.
IOW=It kills ZUNE
If they don't, Kids will use the loophole and the Music Mafia (RIAA) will sue MS's ass.
IOW=It kills ZUNE by proxy (MS)
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Perhaps I could then send a legal blackmail letter to microsoft offering to settle for $3700 and if they don't accept, I can recover up to $150000 for each violation? Regardless of what the actual loss is, it seems the precedent set by the RIAA would declare that each copyright violation for a song is worth more then actual damages.
Since it's safe to assume they'll use an off-the-shelf wireless radio and existing standards, how hard would it be to tunnel a Zune connection over the internet? Messy authentication methods to ensure local connections based upon latency or custom-hardware solutions would interfere with the so-very-important reliability Joe consumer needs in standard operation.
The trick would be the local "access point": a wifi radio matched with the right software.
Your analogy isn't apt. There's really no need for an analogy, because the logic is fairly obvious here.
1. Suppose you share music with me via Zune, and the music is covered under a CC license.
2. I can listen to the file via MS's player, but since the file was shared via Zune, it is DRMed.
3. The DRM prevents me from exercising my rights granted under the CC license, despite the maintenance of those rights being a requirement under the CC license.
4. Since you don't hold the copyright on it, you must either agree to the terms that give you the right to distribute it (namely, the CC license) or not distribute it at all.
5. You are therefore in violation of copyright.
There is no question that the above logic holds true. The question raised by the ancestor post is whether the below logic is also true:
6. Microsoft is (according to the argument being put forth here, anyway) responsible for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement for providing and profiting on a service that causes you to violate copyright if you use it to share CC-licensed music, i.e., they don't give you any choice in the matter regarding the DRM.
I think you could get damages if Microsoft alters files on one of your devices without permission and without proper notification. Like with the rootkit, where you don't actually need to prove that Sony somehow made you lose your job, or made your business go belly up
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
That should read: Zune's Music Sharing Features Will Allow Users to Violate Creative Commons.
The Zune is an inanimate object. It isn't doing anything. It allows the USERS to share music in a DRM'd format. It is the user's responsibility to know that THEY are violating CC by distributing a piece of media with out complying with that media's license.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
"Oh my GOD TEH evil empire sucks the life out of INNOCENT mp3 files!!!!!4!4444444"
Imagine the foot icon howering over my post this time (instead of whoooooooosh).
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Forget the FUD about CC licenses. What's come out of this discussion seems to be that the only songs you can even share over the WiFi are songs bought from MS's music store, and authorized for sharing by the publisher. ...as if I'd be buying music from MS's music store in the first place. So, that reduces the WiFi to a useless batter suck that I'd never use and would possibly be paying extra for. So, no Zune for me, at least not until someone hacks it such that it's actually useful.
They're called statutory damages. You know, like the RIAA sues for. You don't think they are claiming that the damage to them caused by someone uploading a single song is really $150,000 do you?
Ah, just like that disclaimer (almost verbatim) protected p2p vendors from getting their pants sued off. Oh wait: it didn't. Oh well, maybe MS need to just obey the law that they're so keen on getting others to obey.
Pirate Party UK
As an artist trying to get recognized, CC is a great way to spread your work among millions. Now if you ever made it big...the amount of money you might make in the future would be huge.
Find records of artists who were signed after so-and-so recording exec heard the song from a friend of a brother's friend, and you have proven that sharing music can result in a major record deal.
The Zune prevents spreading of CC work, and if your sole purpose of licensing your work under CC was to maximize your audience in hopes of being signed...the losses are much much higher than zero.
Sure, it would take a great lawyer, and a judge with a hard-on for MS (or big business in general)...but it is possible.
With the big record label's monopoly on exposure the only way an artist can ever gain the kind of momentum needed for mainstream success is to sign one-sided contracts with them. This Zune policy sounds like an extension of their current philosophy. It's no big secret that you don't even need any talent to become a household name in the music biz, all you need is a desire to be idolised that outweighs your artistic integrity and there is no shortage of hacks willing to fill those shoes. Take a pretty face and get on your phone to a handful of professional studio musicians and anyone can be a star. When a million ppl 'steal' your work, regardless of howevermany nickels*10e6 you are deprived of if a million ppl steal from you that lost revenue pales in comparison to the fact that you now are a brand, just like Coca-Cola and now you can even sell t-shirts or demand a lot more than a few hundred bucks a gig for performances/remixes/collaborations, etc and what happens is you get it with no strings attached. This Zune DRM favor is going to limit the effectiveness of guerilla marketing for those who choose to liscense CC and attempt to compete based on their actual merit or talent. It won't be long before MS buys Sony/BMG or vise versa, looks like.
If MS were really about sharing files, then why would it need WiFi to do this at all? I mean, Bluetooth is fast enough for transfering ONE song every once and a while. It would allow the Zune to be less expensive to manufacture and potentially better on the battery.
Does the WiFi create it's own little network so I could be on a camping trip and share music or do I need to be in Starbucks so the WiFi can connect to Microsoft and track what I am doing with the music I paid for?
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Addendum: this would also require the Zune reaching a point where it is the portable music player of choice for the majority of your specific demographic.
"It'll be interesting to see how and if the CC community responds."
SUE!! durr
-jX
Don't you just love politics? It's like a comedy of errors.
I'm not interested in the Zune and this DRM system, but the fact that the limitation is enforced by the file format and the software of the target player may really change the equation. The grandparent poster is correct.
The refusal to play the wireless-delivered file comes from its wrapper. That wrapper can be seen as an encrypted file system. I don't think that the CC license restricts anyone from encrypting anything. Is this really a DRM tool in the sense called for by the CC license, or is this just a limitation of the file system? After all, at no point in the system is there any authentication, any "check" on what the rights of the user are. There are no license checks, no phone-homes. It just plays three times and stops.
If I'm transmitting music from my iPod to an FM radio, it will only play one time and stop, without any replayability (unless I record using the "analog hole" from my radio - which I suspect the Zune will allow as well.) Obviously, the motivation behind this is to control the distribution of copyrighted material in some sense, but I don't think it rises to the level of DRM proper.
If I understood the basics of Napster and Grokster right, the companies that were enjoined had to demonstrate that they made efforts to determine whether infringing uses were occurring, to notify users that this activity was illegal, and to implement technological filtering etc. in order to escape from contributory liability.
Welcome to the Zune[TM] Genuine Advandtage[R] Music Experience [TM]! Please be advised that you may not put any songs or other pieces of art on this device that permit sharing. This device is not meant to be used for real sharing, just temporary DRM-crippled glimpses of things. Basically ads. Click "start" to begin, or "No Thanks" to get the price of this machine refunded so you can go get some moderately-useful gadgets"
"Warning: the file you are attempting to play grants you way too much freedom. I want to make it legal for policemen to beat 'em"
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
First, the Zune is just not going to reel me in. Second, this is great. The more stupid shit Microsoft does, the less people will buy their products. What I really hope is that they have a ton of money tied up in it too. The more the better. Microsoft needs to learn several things here:
1. They don't have to do EVERYthing.
2. The reason some people are more successful in an area that they aren't is because they actually do it better!
3. People....hate....DRM....period! Yes, Apple has DRM too. But I can RIP my CD's and the DRM doesn't apply to me.
4. Play to the customer, stupid!
Let me make sure I have this straight... commercial licensing is bad, and we should do all we can to defeat it, because licensing is bad, I own my content, the revolution will not be televised!!111!!!, etc. But breaking a Creative Commons license is bad and wrong?
"If a tune has any texture, any depth, any insight at all, it can take a lot more than three listens to develop an ear for that song. Too bad. Clearly this is not the era to be exposing listeners to Beethoven or Mozart."
,to see the tits and ass, to appreciate modern music. What if the person who sings/performs the tune is not beautiful... hires some dancer/models..."Ears" are entirely optional.
That is why these players need video screens. You need "Eyes"
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Hey let's try another analogy. I have a book under CC, translated into chinese. I could give you a xerox of the book, but since you don't have a chinese reader installed in your brain, it's as good as DRMd to you. Did converting the book to chinese break the CC. No because the book is available in English or whatever elsewhere. Just because I have the chinese copy does not mean I have to supply you with the english copy on demand. Go find it yourself.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Because people should be punished for choosing to buy something you don't want to buy? Honestly, now.
Actually, according to Microsoft's Zune Insider, Zune WILL allow you to share music that hasn't been purchased through the Zune Marketplace:
e .html
http://www.zuneinsider.com/2006/09/answers_to_som
Here's what he says in answer to a question about this:
"I made a song. I own it. How come, when I wirelessly send it to a girl I want to impress, the song has 3 days/3 plays?" Good question. There currently isn't a way to sniff out what you are sending, so we wrap it all up in DRM. We can't tell if you are sending a song from a known band or your own home recording so we default to the safety of encoding. And besides, she'll come see you three days later. . "
Memo to Gates & Co. :
Get it right or you're f*cked.
This is CompuNewsBroadcast. I'm Dan Bloggit and next to me is John Discspinner!
Tonight - Microsoft sells the public on Zune - a site that features a virus as a feature!
That's right, John! Microsoft has now, for the first time anywhere, managed to market a virus that, they claim, is legal! Zune will, whether the recording artist wants it to or not, place playback restrictions on a recording, regardless of the licensing agreement that that artist might have, with anyone - even Microsoft!
And yet, according to Microsoft, this encryption/restriction scheme is all perfectly legal as it "protects the artist against illegal downloading an copying of their product" even if the artist WANTS to give the material away as a promotional item!
So now, even US Government recordings, which are free and available to the public by Act of Congress, will, if downloaded from Zune, no longer be free, nor will they be free of DRM tampering! That's right - no longer will the recorded speeches of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King or anything else from the National Archives that gets loaded onto Zune be fres from a DRM lockdown bug, John. Nor will it be free from that bug when that file gets passed on to anybody else, either!
John, you have to love these guys in Redmond! They sure know how to write creative software! Only Microsoft could market a service that actively SELLS the public a virus as a FEATURE!
John: And they REALLY know how to write creative marketing materials, too, Dan! You have to give them their props for that!
Dan: John, I've known that since OS/2.
And now the weather...
Lee Darrow, C.H.
By adding their DRM, it becomes a derived work. By Microsoft. (OK that one may be a bit of a stretch, but then so was sampling a part of 4'33" of silence)
And more securely, because the DRM is linked ineradicably to Microsoft, the file now BELONGS to microsoft: only the owner of a work can tell you "you can't do that" and MS can tell you (or change later) what you can and cannot do with that DRM'd work.
So MS *has* stolen the work. They now own it.
(and as someone later on said, the puchaser of the Zune product doesn't own it: it is license and MS own it!)
Sorry I missed "they've never done any such thing"
;)
But hopefully I have given a good explanation to backup your point
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
MS said pretty much said, and I paraphrase, that Zune is a dead product, that it really won't be available for a 'few' years, that they really don't have a clear idea of its feature set and we shouldn't get our hopes up. Apple crushed this product 2 days before it was announced by doing the easiest thing possible - out MSing MS. All they did was double the HD size, repackaged some older shells and in an interesting twist, reinvented the shuttle as a clever clever little package. MS simply couldn't compete with last year's hardware.
Hell even the 'tech' guy on CNBC couldn't say much more than the screen is 30% bigger than the iPod and that's about it. I think we can expect that Zune will be an abortive product. And if they actually sell any of them they will pull the product in less than a year. Because let's face facts. Only MS believes that people want to watch DRM DVD's on a tiny screen. Apple is offering video download on their newest offering but I think we understand that the sweet spot isn't "Final Destination IV" or "The Notebook", director's cut. It will be videos, video poscasts, class lectures that sort of thing.
I need to modify my logic in my post above. While that logic is valid under a CC Share-Alike license, it turns out that all CC licenses explicitly forbid technological protection measures on redistributed works. Therefore, #3 should read, "The CC license forbids the use of DRM on redistributed works."
> many of you would love that just to stick it to MS,
> but you'd be screwing over Zune's users in the process
Collateral damage.
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
BnetD.
1. Create crappy song with Creative Commons License ...
2. Get Microsoft to force user to violate license
3.
4. PROFIT!!!!!!
Sometimes step 3 is easy to imagine.
Tharkban (It is a signature after all)
Two obvious approaches Microsoft could take to avoid this problem:
Friendly: if sharing a file whose ID3 tag indicates it's licensed under an appropriate CC license, don't add the DRM. (Why? respect the copyright.)
Greedy: if the file's ID3 tag indicates it's licensed under a CC license incompatible with Zune's sharing DRM, refuse to share it. (Why? Microsoft assumes its customers are "pirates" willing to edit ID3 tags, distrbute home-ripped CD tracks, etc.)
Funny aside: the CAPTCHA for this post is *almost* "Easter". I was just thinking that Zune's "sharing" DRM is like an Anti-Easter Egg
1) It's not an Easter Egg because it's been publicized (somewhat) before release.
2) It's not an Easter Egg because it won't make any users happy.
3) Unlike Easter, in this case everything's OK for three days, and then it dies.
Heh. Microsoft says, "we can do viral stuff, too"! :->
Seriously, though - it won't be MS who will get in trouble with the CC license, it will be whoever wants to transfer the song..
I am the maverick of Slashdot
No, people should be punished because it's their own shortsigthedness in terms of ignoring Congress' stupidity in passing laws like the DMCA that's causing the problem! Only when they realize that will something finally be done about it.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
no DRM, a quarter a tune.
You think the average user has any fucking clue what a Creative Commons License is, or what it even entails? You think too highly of the average consumer, methinks. They'll violate it anyways out of sheer ignorance.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
The Zune Looks like a complete POS to me. I wouldn't have one given to me...
-- Fuck Beta
In cases where users are sharing songs covered by any of the Creative Commons licenses, this would be a clear violation of those license. From the CC FAQ: 'If a person uses DRM tools to restrict any of the rights granted in the license, that person violates the license.' It'll be interesting to see how and if the CC community responds."
Umm - isn't the "licensee" of the media the one responsible for assuring that the license is followed? If that's the case, it's not the Zune that would be the one breating the Creative Commons license, it would be the end-user for allowing it to happen.
There's nothing forcing them to put on a Zune, much less share, a CC covered song.
Sounds like more FUD.
"recipients of shared songs will only be able to listen to them three times or for three days, whichever comes first." -http://www.medialoper.com/hot-topics/music/zunes- big-innovation-viral-drm/
This is a joke. {period}
Users will get over the cool factor quickly
What cool factor?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
How long before The Zune is running Linux. What follows? Whatever you want.
Anyway- I'll stick to my iPod, and Used CDs from Amazon iTunes+AAC.
Ed Palma
Saying the Zune's DRM is viral is like saying the GPL is necessary to protect code freedom. In both cases, the derivative work has no impact on the freedom on the original so both are lies. The Zune DRM prevents further distribution of the shared work and timebombs it. It is not viral because the resultant work is a time-limited deadend. The GPL, on the other hand, imposes itself on derivative works and is therefore viral. The GPL spreads through its mechanism while the Zune DRM is used to assure its own death.
Why is it, that on blogs, in comments, and many other places, I see this exact bahvior ascribed to Apple (adds DRM to .mp3s, has "proprietary format" conversion) when they've never done any such thing - and when Microsoft does it, it's no big deal?
I imagine it was preemptive astroturf on M$'s part but don't think it's not a big deal. The transcoding nonsense fooled me by repetition and disinterest on my part. M$'s main competitive weapon is to say everyone else has their problems and none of their strengths, which usually reduce to their desktop monopoly.
Did I say disinterest? Yes I did. For the same reasons I have no interest in Zune, I also have no interest in iPod. Apple's DRM method for your non DRM'd music is to erase everything from the device if you plug it into another computer (that's news I got from an actual owner I trust to get things right). As a person who has more than one computer and I don't want to have to jump through hoops to share with myself and my friends. I don't want to have to install a non free client to load music to my music player. I don't want to have to beg that non free client to copy my music to my other computers. Finally, I don't want a player that erases everything when I try to copy files that are under free licenses. The Radiators of New Orleans encourage people to record and share their songs. Because of this, I have almost two gigs of their awesome music. The music players I actually own don't self destruct when I plug them into a friend's computer. It's a shame because I admire and envy Apple's mechanical design.
Zune, I'm sure, will have all of those problems and more.
People, eventually, will end up with music devices that are easy. They will transfer files by standard protocols and will play any of the formats supported by giants like Xine - no problem video and music streaming and playback. Anything less than that is too much trouble in the long run.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
This story should be pulled immediately! Slashdot does not tolerate cheap shots towards Microsoft
Don't worry, swarms of paid M$ PR drones will quickly make light of DRM and other serious flaws in this M$ product. People will be so busy laughing at their +5 funny wit, they will never notice that the Zune sucks. Sales will be off chart, like Xbox, because M$'s marketing genious never fails it just gets pushed into a "ten year time frame" of money loss. Go team!
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If Microsoft were to allow wireless sharing without DRM, then it would be used for open-piracy of songs, this is quite clear.
By that reasoning, any non DRM publication would be used for "open-piracy". The whole point of electronic copy is that it's costless and perfect. If non DRM'd copy is outlawed, every general purpose computing device would be outlawed. I can do the same things on my laptop, with my CDs etc, etc.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Seems like someone is getting a taste of their own medicine and not liking it. Viral licence meet viral DRM.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
They'll market it through back-channels -- you'll see lots of "sign up for XXX and get a FREE Microsoft Zune!" and Zunes given away as prizes in contests. I'm sure that Microsoft has figured out how long they can lose money on Zunes before they have to pull the plug.
Even that's not enough to save M$'s media grab. This one will go the way of their college music force fee services and Dell's music player, September 22, 2005 - August 24, 2006, RIP. The give away was there but the deal still sucked. If it requires use of WMP, it's not going to work because WMP does not work. Yes, people still remember the WMA fiasco where WMP refused to play their music collections after the all to frequent system wipe and reload. People continue to overwhelmingly reject teathered music in favor of the same thing without DRM from CDs. Zune is more of the same and worse bad deal. People are not going to buy them no matter how many M$ gives away.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
When you plug an iPod into a computer that it has not been connected to before, it asks if you would like to synchronize it with this computer.
It warns you in no uncertain terms that this will replace the iPod contents with the current iTunes library.
The only way what you describe above could have happened would be that the user did not read the message, and clicked OK rather than cancel.
NB You can click cancel, open the iPod settings and turn it to manual update, then copy songs to the iPod from any iTunes Mac / PC.
The main point of DRM was to permit copyright holders to specify how their music is to be used; in fact, DRM is primarily a language for such specifications.
Microsoft seems to have misunderstood DRM as a means to let Microsoft impose their views on the rest of the world.
I was hoping the MS music player would be popular. Apple makes better products under competitive pressure. So if MS makes a really cool inexpensive media device, iPods will need to improve. I like having purchasing choices. Unfortunately, the /. consensus seems to be that the Zune will be a flop. (I do remember people's saying the same thing about the xbox) So here's hoping that Zune helps the market.
Hey! No one here ever would ever use a Zune anyway, even when Amazon offers to give them away for free so we can pay them to use their Unbox content, so what diference does it really make anyway. (And remember... Friends don't let freinds do Zunes!)
Yes. PR DRONES. Paid by Microsoft.
Twitter, seek help.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
One tech columnist was able to confirm that Zune will encumber *any* music file you want to share with its three-day DRM, whether it's your own song, or something in the public domain, or something under the Creative Commons.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
I download a file on P2P, I listen to it three times, decide it's crap and don't bother to buy a copy - that's illegal...?
Am I the only one who sees the hipocracy here?
Maybe the RIAA will sue Microsoft but I'm not holding my breath. The last thing the RIAA wants is somebody to actually go to court and fight their trumped up charges.
No sig today...
If they were smart, they would implement this DRM but make it so easy to get around that everyone moves from the Ipod to the Zune. MS will then rule the marketplace and kill apple's sales. Leave the workaround open for a while and let all the customers come over and then patch it.
And besides, she'll come see you three days later
No she won't.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The Zune isn't going to be an overnight iPod killer. Microsoft is doing two things with the Zune: Dipping their toe in the water of the portables market; and getting practice for what's coming down the road.
What is coming down the road that will render the iPod (and other MP3 players) obsolete?
If Microsoft wants to be a player in the above technologies, it needs to get in the market now with Zune. Picture this: In five years you buy an ultra-mobile PC with a 100 gig hard drive, wireless internet, and a 3-4 megapixel camera. What do you think you'll do with your cell phone, iPod, and camera? Do you think Microsoft wants you to use their software?
No, I will not work for your startup
But Microsoft don't have the right to let someone send even three copies of any song for even three days, unless the rigths owner grants it to them. If they let you share your own song for three days then the device must also allow you to share, say, songs you've copied froma bougth CD for three days - and that is illegal. MS can't just say, "oh,3 days & 3 plays can't do any harm. That's not really IP theft!" because it's not up to them!
Looks like there's been an update to TFA since you looked at it last (giving you the benefit of the doubt). Medialoper's post added this addendum, which "actually came from Microsoft's own Zune Insider, Cesar Menendez":
You can read Menendez' full blog posting here, if you're interested.
So, the long and the short of it is that the Zune will share Creative Commons music, and indeed anything else you stick on it, without necesarily going through MS' online store, and without "opting in" to Microsoft's draconian DRM. You seemed to think that:
Unless things change between now and release, that isn't actually that case -- the publishers / file creators don't have one single iota of input in this process; the Zune will add DRM to every shared audio file, regardless of license. So I must agree with the idea of "contributory and vicarious infringement", only in this case, it's not an offense against the RIAA caused by sharing, it's an offense against every single copyright license that disallows such DRM shenanigans. Sure, some will argue that there simply isn't that much content covered by Creative Commons and similar licenses, but such content is on the increase, and for the Zune to add this kind of draconian DRM automatically to *everything* is simply Not Cool(TM).
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I'm not privy to Zune internals, but from what I've gleaned about it, it sounds like the forehead-slappingly easiest way for MS to implement this would be to have a fancified cache directory into which all audio files received via sharing are placed. This cache directory will delete any item older than X, or any file that's been played more than Y times (perhaps flagged by means of audio file metadata written by the player, that counts how many times any file is played).
Reading about MS' claims of "seamlessly adding DRM" to shared audio files, I suspect what they are doing is not actually adding any DRM to files at all -- this would be tricky to pull off, especially given the requirements that the process must be seamless, quick, and invisible to the user. Meanwhile, watching directory contents is brain-dead simple, and would require exactly zero fancy coding to add DRM to audio files. YMMV, but I find it's generally a safe bet to put your money on the simple solutions, at least where MS is concerned. :)
If this is in fact the case, "cracking" such DRM measures would require some means at the very least of manipulating file metadata, perhaps to make sure every audio file is only one day old and has only been played once. Or, if MS is clever and has added a metadata bit flagging a file as "shared", instead of using a cache directory, simply set that bit to "0" and you're good to go. (Note that this is all conjecture; you must do your own reverse engineering to figure out what MS has done to implement their DRM.)
At any rate, happy hunting to all you puzzle-loving hackers out there! And be sure to let us all know once you've broken it!
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
...but only for three days or three plays, whichever comes first! :-P
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
One of our moles on the inside told us Microsoft just had a meeting to determine the price of the 30GB Zune. The final tally: $229.99. Microsoft was going to go $289.99 to undercut the iPod by $10, but since Apple dropped the bombshell that they were lowering prices to $249, Microsoft had to scramble to undercut the lower price as well.
As a result, the Zune might be dropping some pre-loaded content that nobody really cared much for anyway. - Jason Chen
Nothing for 6-digit uids?