Slashdot Mirror
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.
It seems to me that if you create a format called "PlaysForSure", it should actually "Play for Sure". OTherwise your customers might - oh, I don't know - lose confidence in your ability to compete in the market? Instead, they'll go to a certain competitor that does "Play for Sure" despite not advertising such?
It's almost as if Microsoft is reading Slashdot. Their new business plan is:
1. Create a format called "PlaysForSure"
2. Make certain that it doesn't "Play for Sure"
3. Cede 95% of the market to Apple
4. ???
5. PROFIT!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
This is kinda dumb.. but I don't think this is something that Microsoft is alone in. This is just an example of the problems with Digital Restrictions Management. We'll see a lot more of this to come.
Join the Free Software Foundation
This was bound to happen. Let's see if anything good comes of it.
Palm trees and 8
How about everyone not flip out about the specs on an unreleased product?
Think of the liability this opens them up to, didn't edonkey get shut down for enabling those evil hackers from trading music and movies?
Hopefully this will point to a market trend, an admission that copyrights are out of control to a large degree. I hate buying music from Itunes because of all the stupid license rules associated with it. It'd be nice to just be allowed to buy some .mp3 files and do with them as I feel. I don't even need a lossless format, my damaged ears can't tell the difference anyway.
This article has recently been linked from Slashdot. Please keep an eye on the page history for errors or vandalism.
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.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
I don't think MS is advocating Breaking The Law. I think their spokesman is a Judas Priest fan.
Ah look at Microsoft trying to appeal to the masses. How cute. Sounds to me more like an excuse because they have no mechanism in place for delivering media for this device.
____________________
Free iPods? Its legit. 5 of my friends got theirs. Get yours here!
Just think about it.. just how dumb do you think MS are?
I know most of you don't like DRM, but it's not infecting files. It's not a virus/trojan/whatever.
It's a lock. A digital lock. Call it Digital Restrictions Management if you must (since it stills describe what it does), but not infection.
The general public already has their hands full trying to understand all this technological mumbo-jumbo. Let's not spread more FUD.
I assume the Zune will not be stamped with the PlaysforSure logo, certifying that it is able to play those tracks. This does not compromise the validity of PlaysForSure at all -- that is merely a way for consumers to know where their media will be playable (ie which portable media players they can buy). There was no guarantee, explicit or otherwise, that these songs would play forever - only that they would play on devices that were certified PlaysForSure compatible (of which, apparently, Zune is not one).
This suggests to me that there haven't been many PlaysForSure track purchases. I suspect most people who play DRM'd WMA files subscribe to unlimited services like Yahoo Unlimited. I am such a person, and I have yet to purchase a "burnable" track.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Microsoft really does a remarkable job of shooting themselves in the foot, don't they? It's like a frickin' comedy of errors with Microsoft's attempts to enter into the media device market.
The worst part is that their formats (WMA/WMV) have become the formats of choice for a large number of devices and services. And now those services are feeling what it's like to be a Microsoft customer. Ouch. Sorry guys, we should've told you to lube up first.
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
It's a common theme that companies and governments want you to do things that are illegal. In fact, arguably, a lot of legislation is aimed at making things illegal that many people will be doing anyway (and, in some cases, don't have a choice): traffic laws, drug laws, decency laws, copyright laws, etc. Those sorts of laws are useful tools for selective enforcement, stronger contract negotiation positions, barriers to entry, and differential pricing.
Microsoft like DRM and the DMCA because it gives them the ability to implement differential pricing, erect bariers to entry, and have stronger negotiating positions; and they like DRM-breaking software because it makes their devices more useful. There is no contradiction in their behavior.
Of course, there is a contradiction tp their stated justifications for DRM, and it is important to bring this up prominently whenever Congress reconsiders DRM-related legislation.
Why again do people still buy hardware with DRM at all? There are still plenty of products from the States and other countries which do not have these limitations.
Funnypics
So the next person to be taken to court for violation of copyright should claim that it was Microsoft's idea, they told me it would be OK to do it.
I knew it was only a matter of time before this type stuff started happening to DRM. With the DCMA backing up DRM and the vendor lockin to players, it will not be long before congress steps in and makes some changes. Just wait until one of there kids has an issue with it.
Cry bias all you want, but Zune's lack of ability to play PlaysForSure content is completely preposterous. This is the absolute, objective truth.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
I hate buying music from Itunes because of all the stupid license rules associated with it.
Then don't do it. Even if you dislike doing it, each time you purchase tainted music files you're giving a show of support for DRM. Not only that, but it's financial support you're offering, which is perhaps the worst kind, as it directly allows for their deviant behavior to continue.
We know that DRM-encumbered media has many disadvantages. This Zune nonsense is a perfect example of that. So the best thing to do is to stop buying music from iTunes. Don't start buying music from whatever service Microsoft might offer. Don't buy CDs. Don't download MP3s.
What you should do is get involved with your local music scene. Get to know the bands and artists in your area, or the nearest city. Many times they're far more deserving of your financial support than the multimillionaire fucks in California, and their music is often so much better! Not only that, but you can interact with them personally, and possibly even collaborate with them to some extent (if you're a musician yourself). The best part of it all is that you're getting to listen to some decent music, and you're not supporting corrupt companies and DRM, but rather you're supporting your neighbors.
Microsoft, meet the devil. RIAA, meet The Borg. lock 'em both in a room and wait for the noise to die down before looking to see if anything survived ;)
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
If you buy aggressively DRM'd media, they'll find yourself having to buy it again, break the law, or go without when it stops working years later.
Why can't there be legal format conversions? Why can't MS (and other DRM happy companies) release a tool that converts "old" DRMed media to "new" DRMed media...still locked to the same computer. (I realize there are other complicated permuations of DRM like getting data off of a DVD in any manner, but in terms of online purchased, DRMed media...) Wouldn't it only be "circumventing" if it stripped the DRM? I realize media companies have no incentive to do that willingly, but if MS and other compatibility challenged hardware manufacturers are serious about marketing the Zune et al., actually solving this problem for their customers would seem like an obvious step.
Although it's not the smartest tactical move, it does make some sense that Zune won't play PlaysForSure content, as it guarantees some additional revenue (beyond the PlaysForSure licensing fees MS charges those other vendors) as customers are forced to use the MS music store. It will also make customer support much more straightforward; having every aspect of this music device from a single vendor will ensure a better user experience. Personally, I think the addition of PlaysForSure would have been an effective selling point, and could have helped MS get a foot in the market's door. On the other hand, those other music services haven't been too successful, so it isn't that big of a penalty.
While the decision will surely harm MS in the short term, and completely alienate all the other PlaysForSure software and hardware licensees (probably killing the format), it would definitely improve MS's long-term prospects, assuming it isn't pulled off the market after a year of dismal sales. If history is any indication, MS will stick with it, keep improving their offerings, and eventually have something that appeals to the lowest common denominator on the market.
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
...then shut the door again 'til you're sure the other one's dead, too.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This is exactly why I still buy CD's. I have control over my music (when there isn't a rootkit on the CD of course). I can do what I want with it. I can rip it into unlimited types of formats...and its all DRM free. Plus, I have a backup in case something happens to the files. A new, cool, small footprint, lossless format is devised? Just re-rip the CD and press onward.
I wonder why slashdotters make comments disparaging the monicker "PlayForSure". It is named correctly and it works as designed. The problem seems to be that slashdotters think "PlayForSure" means the songs the chumps bought will play for sure. Nah. Common misunderstanding. Play for sure, simply means, MSFT will play these chumps who buy DRMed music for sure, play them like a fiddle, shake them down for music they have already bought.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I hope that I'm wrong about this, as it would be too funny if the Zune couldn't play DRMed music.
Of all the days...
Microsoft, you scurvy dogs!
Summation 2
From the Article: Buried in footnote 4 of its press release, Microsoft clearly states that "Zune software can import audio files in unprotected WMA, MP3, AAC; photos in JPEG; and videos in WMV, MPEG-4, H.264" -- protected WMA and WMV (not to mention iTunes DRMed AAC) are conspicuously absent.
In other words they are drawing conclusions from two missing entries that may turn out to be typos or may be missing for a reason other than compatibility. Just another FUD-laden EFF article.
Where the hell is my damn -1 WRONG modifier? ANY attempt to circumvent the WEAKEST of encryption (css ispretty freaking weak) without the consent of the copyright holder is a criminal offense in the USA. And just to make matters totally STUPID, its a felony to boot. Thank you DMCA.
I had a good sig once... but I smoked it...
Q. Where is Zune going to fit in with people's pre-existing media libraries? What is it going to support? What can we expect when we actually get a Zune and want to be able to use it with the media that we currently have?
A 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.
Q When PlaysForSure was introduced, the premise was, we make it simple so that you don't have to worry about whether your player works with the music you're purchasing...
A. We've also found that there's a category of customers that say, "Give me a brand experience, advertise it to me on television; I want to be part of the digital music revolution, and that solution [PlaysForSure] doesn't work for me." So they're two complementary solutions -- not everyones gonna want Zune and not everyone's gonna want PlaysForSure. They're different paths there, and we're okay with both of them.
Extracts from The Engadget Interview: J Allard, Microsoft Corporate Vice President
Reduce, reuse, cycle
ha ha, you should have replied as AC... *ouch*
I'd rather speak for myself, even if it means getting modded down by people with nothing better to do.
Aye, why do Me suddenly feel the need t' pirate some mo'ies?
Because tis' Talk Like a Pirate Day. Gar, Where can I find a bottle o'rum?
"...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
...snort....giggle...
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
"Plays for sure.... psyche!"
"Plays for now."
"Plays for as long as we feel like it."
"Sure it plays. Trust us."
I'm hardly what you'd call a Microsoft fan-boy (I'm not even a Microsoft user), but I'm not seeing where it says that it can't play this stuff. I haven't seen any confirmation from the horse's mouth. I mean, this is all coming from a footnote in a PR document which says:
It doesn't say that other applications can't put protected music onto the device, nor does it say that it can't play that stuff. It just says that the built-in software can't do it. Which makes sense, really, because it would imply that Microsoft is ready, willing and able to break the protection applied by a partnering online music store. That's pretty nasty, even for a "stab your partner" company like them.Of course, that won't make it much of an iTunes killer. "Oh, you want to import music from some other store. Okay.... open their player app, and see if they'll let you export each individual piece of media to the Zune. Including the stuff you ripped from CD and it helpfully 'protected' for you. Then, if you're lucky and they haven't changed the terms and conditions or you've moved computers or devices or something..."
Log in or piss off.
My bad.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Probably because of the "copy" in "copyright". Every new copy they allow you to download is presumably another copy they have to pay for to the RIAA, regardless of whether you owned it or not (unless the RIAA made an exception for the above situation and refused money in that case... yeah right).
Donate free food here
All of my files "play for sure". I do not have any problems with incompatibility. I have no DRM in any files. If I have to buy it with DRM, that is removed first, then I have "play for sure"
Buy the CD - RIP - Play for sure EVERYWHERE for EVERYONE!
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
I don't think the people who make the laws care about the consumers very much. I suspect they care more about the large companies and lobbyists that donate money and perks.
Come play free flash games on Kongregate!
That is incorrect. If a format has DRM in it, which would be considered both encryption, and copy protection, format shifting would require you 1) reverse engineer the format, which is illegal by the DMCA, 2) undo the encryption, and remove the copy protection, which is illegal by the DMCA, and 3) convert it to a playable format. The last part isn't illegal, although the RIAA would like it to be.
DRM + DMCA makes format shifting illegal, because circumventing DRM is illegal. If you're just converting from WAV to MP3, or ripping a CD or something, you're in the clear. It's the combination that's the real problem.
The DMCA sounds like a good idea at first, until you see the loopholes you can drive a truck through. It's made all kinds of reasonable actions illegal, and allowed copyright holders to abuse it for their own ends. It's also law for and about technology, made and approved by people who don't understand it.
--Not to be worried, Pitr fix.
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.
I'm no knee jerk anti-drm demon here because I'm really trying to look at this in an agnostic way. This really bites for consumers and really instills a real lack of confidence in the whole scheme of content devices. Not only does the DRM itself kind of lock you into certain vendors, but now there is no guarantee that the content will work on a device from the same vendor. Honest to goodness I was considering a Zune, mostly because I didn't want to get an iPod because it was the trendy thing to do. But after looking at the options, I know without a doubt that the Zune is not for me. This, because of the latest news on how its tentacles get wrapped around your non-DRM files, AND there's really no way for me to be sure that MS will change its mind AGAIN about the future compatibility of its own file formats. What am I to do? I want to get an iPod, but I'm not not sure they are the answer either because now I can't be sure that if I buy music through iTunes that it won't break someday either. It seems to me that if I still want to buy legitimate music from iTunes, I need to get a pirated counterpart in a non-restricted format like MP3 or ogg, etc. so that as devices wax and wane, I'm still able to listen to my tunes...which really kinda defeats the purpose of going legit.
Even for someone who's tech savvy, the uncertainty is disconcerting...
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
If history is any indication, MS will stick with it, keep improving their offerings, and eventually have something that appeals to the lowest common denominator on the market.
If history is any indication, MS will abandon it for something else when they think it convenient, just like they're doing with Plays For Sure.
This is exactly what you should expect from M$. Yes, they are going to encourage people to "steal" other people's copyrighted material and break the laws they promoted. From their point of view, this is natural. M$ has been the primary benefactor of software "piracy" all along. They thought that DRM was the same thing, just another "speedbump" to keep "honest users" paying. Wink wink, "steal" Windoze, photoshop and autocad they want you to know how to use it! Sounds familiar? The problem for them here is that the primary rightsholders in this case, the RIAA, is bigger than anything M$ has been up against yet. They are also more important for media players. If they get away with it, it's only because they came to an agreement with big media.
I don't think that the RIAA is that smart. They demanded DRM to lock out competition and expand their little broadcast and physical media monopoly into cyberspace. The way they see it, Microsoft has just crossed the line between being a promoter of that monopoly and an a competitor making money by copying ancient recordings. The only worse thing M$ can do is promote "unsigned" bands and dilute the top 40 rip off.
None of this will be pleasant for users. DRM will be the pain it's supposed to be. Users will have to creep around "pirate" sites to find the software they need to do the conversion. What they find will be a cesspool booby trapped by the music industry and spammers. Then the RIAA might come and sue them too.
The best thing that can happen is for people to circumvent all of the greed heads. Musicians can go with less greedy promoters and users can buy unencumbered music from them and all this non free shit can die.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The entitlement disease is rampant on Slashdot...
You mean like the taxes on blank media, so that no matter how such media is used I still get paid? Oh, I see now.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
the DMCA does not have a fair use exemption. If it did, I don't think anyone would care about the DMCA, and people like the guy who was arrested for making an Acrobat reader for blind people, etc. would not have been bothered.
If it is indeed allowed to do this, then where is the LEGAL software to do things that are "fair use" with DRM'd data? It doesn't exist.
I'd mod that insightful, if it weren't so painfully obviously true.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
I think the point was that they are a legitimate distributor that "plays for sure", since they distribute mp3s without DRM. But I must question your "spy/adware" comment...
First of all, there is a difference, between spyware and adware.
Secondly, I've been using their service for almost a year and have never had adware pushed on me. Frankly, the first site's description of the adware looked like shortcuts to sign up for their services. "Desktop and start menu links"? Come on...
I'm not even sure how accurate this information is. It was last updated almost a year ago. I do have an option to uninstall the eMusic download manager. And if you're concerned about your personal information being shared you can opt out. Most people do not seem to have a problem with is, as eMusic is the second largest legitimate download service.
Also, how do they "push" these files to you? Based on the links you provided it sounds more like Winamp and other free software are bundling these shortcuts to help support their business.
I will say that I hate spyware, adware, and malware as much as the next guy, but it sounds like you're mostly spreading FUD here. I like eMusic and haven't had any problems with adware from them. Do you work for Apple?
Oh I'm not, eh? Tell me then, what gives content providers the "right" to use DRM?
It sure as Hell isn't copyright law, because that exists in order to enlarge the Public Domain, for the benefit of the public!
There's a common misconception that information "belongs" to whoever thinks it up. The fact is, though, that it doesn't. It never has. Copyright law in the United States -- until recently -- reflected this, from the Constitution on down. It's only been after extensive lobbying by the RIAA etc. over the past few decades that opinion has changed. I can only hope it changes back before we all forget that we're the ones with an inherent right to our culture and become "information serfs!"
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You missed the point. Apparently, in some jurisdictions, media companies are entitled to a chunk of my money, when I buy CDRs to back-up my data. In other words, anything that you can bribe/bully your legislators into, becomes an entitilement. If we can get the laws changed, to outlaw DRM, then we will be 'entitled' to DRM-free content.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
-Kurt
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
I agree with and support the original idea codified in the Constitution; that we should give authors a limited period were they can exclusively benefit from their work because I believe it does encourage them to produce more. I also try to pay for free software as often as possible because I appreciate the author's hard work and want to encourage them to continue. I'm not asking to get free stuff. All I'm demanding is to retain my rights as a human being and United States citizen.
DRM prevents an unlicensed user from accessing the legitimate content which I have.
Yes, DRM is access control.
It also prevents me from copying the content to a different media and/or format, which is fair use.
No. Bits are bits. You can copy them to another player/medium, but other devices won't be able to decrypt them to play them.
Access control, not copy prevention. Nothing stops you from copying DRM'd music, you just can't access it if you move it elsewhere.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
You're mistaken. CSS and other DRM schemes are considered access controls under the DMCA. The "authorized" way to gain access to a CSS-protected work is to play it in a licensed DVD player which can enforce things like Macrovision, region coding, and P-UOPs as required by the CSS license. If you circumvent CSS to access it another way, you're gaining unauthorized access. See MGM v. 321 Studios, for example:
Finally, from the text of the law itself:
You don't have access to the copyrighted movie stored on a DVD until you decrypt it; decrypting it without the authority of the copyright holder is circumvention; and if you aren't licensed by the DVD CCA to use a CSS key, you don't have that authority.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.