Zune Won't Play Old DRM Infected Files

Spritzer writes "According to the EFF, the new Zune portable media player from Microsoft won't play files infected with the old Microsoft DRM. It seems that all of the 'PlaysforSure' media that has been sold and is currently being sold will not play on the Zune. In addition, Microsoft has now advocated violating the DMCA in order to transfer files to the player. Microsoft Zune architect J Allard was quoted as saying there's 'Lots of DVD ripping software out there that encodes to those formats, so the most popular formats out there, whether it's MPEG-4 or H.264, we'll support those.'" ZDNet offers up additional commentary on this revelation.

Comments

Re:DRM

[betterunixthanunix]

You would think that cases like this would illustrate to the world that DRM is an inanely stupid idea that doesn't serve consumers. Maybe when a company like Microsoft tells it's users that they have to break the law in order to view media they purchased, Congress should consider repealing the law.

This was bound to happen. Let's see if anything good comes of it.

End to End Solution

[Winterblink]

It's obvious Microsoft is shooting for an iTunes-ish end-to-end solution for music, a tightly integrated store+software+player solution. It's just interesting to me that URGE and Windows Media Player aren't it to them, which shows a pretty shocking lack of confidence in their own services and products, as far as the Zune is concerned.

RealNetworks and Sandisk have already stated their intent to do something similar, which reeks like all the PlaysForSure partners aren't too impressed with this move by Microsoft.

It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a trap. I expect a later announcement that the Zune will, in fact, Play For Sure (tm). This move has been taken to discredit opponents of DRM, like the EFF and most of the people who comment on this site. Every opponent of DRM will use the Zune as an example of how DRM fucks the consumer in the ass, and then Microsoft will reveal that they are wrong about this speciifc case, suggesting that perhaps they are wrong about DRM in general, too.

Just think about it.. just how dumb do you think MS are?

Re:DRM

[badasscat]

Maybe when a company like Microsoft tells it's users that they have to break the law in order to view media they purchased, Congress should consider repealing the law.

I'm not sure he's advocating breaking any law, including the DMCA. He just maybe has a little different interpretation of the law than some. But neither his interpretation, nor the interpretation of those on the other side of the fence has actually been tested in court to my knowledge.

The DMCA makes a specific exception to itself for fair use provisions. In essence, it says that if you previously had a right to do something under existing copyright law, you still have a right to do that thing. What the DMCA does is ensure that DRM is protected against those trying to break existing copyright law. It says "if you break DRM for the purposes of infringing copyright, then you are breaking the law." (The fair use exception comes after the actual restrictions, but you have to read everything together to know what the law itself actually is. I'm convinced some people just stop reading once they've read the restrictions.) But since fair use is codified into copyright law, you're not breaking the law by breaking DRM. At least, that would have to be J. Allard's interpretation of the DMCA.

The ZDNet article says the DMCA makes certain exceptions, "none of which apply here." That's not necessarily true. The author is apparently assuming that breaking DRM to move your DVD's from disc to Zune or your PlaysForSure files from one device to another would not be covered under fair use provisions of copyright law. He may or may not be right, but the Supreme Court has in the past used format-shifting as an example of fair use, going all the way back to the Betamax decision. (The examples listed as fair use in the law itself are just that, examples. They do not encompass all potential fair uses.)

The DMCA is no doubt a draconian law. But a) it has not really been fully tested in court yet, mainly because the individual users it most directly affects don't have the money to pursue a lengthy court case, and b) it is open to as much interpretation as the fair use provision in existing copyright law.

The long and the short of it is I think this whole Zune thing is a big fiasco for Microsoft, but I don't necessarily agree that J. Allard is telling people to break the law.

Re:DRM

[ktappe]

You are not entitled to DRM-free content. The entitlement disease is rampant on Slashdot.

Apparently so is the "fuck the consumer" disease. You seem to be confusing the concepts of "earned" and "entitled". When a user pays for content, they have the right to play it. That is not "entitlement", it is "receiving what one worked for and paid for." If you still disagree, then I suppose you are OK with not being able to drive your car anymore when the manufacturer suddenly decides to make it obsolete. And, actually, to continue that analogy, there are laws in the U.S. that force car (and other product) makers to maintain a supply of parts for their products so that exactly this type of thing cannot happen with material goods. Seems to me it's high time for the same to be legislated of digital media; you should not have your 6 month old purchase of a song or movie suddenly taken from you because they choose not to support it anymore. Or do you support the 'right' of big business to fuck with the consumer in absolutely any way they see fit? I'm sure you don't advocate additional consumer protection laws because you oppose government interfering in our lives, but it sure is interesting how you have no problem with corporations interfering with our lives. Why do you take diametrically opposing views on these two entities when they act (and misbehave) so much alike? And why is the concept of treating the consumer fairly such a low priority for you?

-Kurt