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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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
...snort....giggle...
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
This is related to the Zune's ability to share files with other Zune players.
More info here, all throughout the comments: http://www.zuneinsider.com/2006/09/answers_to_some .html
"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."
"Plays for sure.... psyche!"
"Plays for now."
"Plays for as long as we feel like it."
"Sure it plays. Trust us."
My bad.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
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!
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.
Here's the link.
Here's the relevant section:
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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 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
-Kurt
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007