Slashdot Mirror
MSN Music Purchases Not Compatible with Zune
lewiz writes "The BBC is reporting that music purchased at MSN Music will not play on the new Zune music player." From the article: "The problem has arisen because tracks from the MSN Music site are compatible with the specifications of the Plays For Sure initiative. This was intended to re-assure consumers as it guaranteed that music bought from services backing it would work with players that supported it. MSN Music, Napster, AOL Music Now and Urge all backed Plays For Sure as did many players from hardware makers such as Archos, Creative, Dell and Iriver. In a statement a Microsoft spokesperson said: 'Since Zune is a separate offering that is not part of the Plays For Sure ecosystem, Zune content is not supported on Plays For Sure devices.'"
Plays For Sure Maybe.
You fail to understand that "Plays For Sure" and all the OEM suckers that bought into it were simply a part of MS's larger experiment.
Zune is, practically speaking, a DRM 2.0 for MS and entertainment mega-corps.
Which goes to show you how much MS actually values companies using their platform in 2006.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Then they go on with this -
They could save a few of those dollars by applying some basic business sense.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
Well if you use PGP to sign and encrypt your messages to send you have effectivly used a form of DRM.
But I digress.
DRM = Defective Recorded Media
DRM = Digitally Restricted Media
DRM = Definitely Rented Media
DRM = (Customers) Don't Really Matter
DRM = Don't Rewind Movies
Anyone else?
If DRM isn't inherently evil, it certainly doesn't have anything going for it.
I can certainly see lots of good things from a technology that will let you send a message that can only be received by the intended target, and that the message will be destroyed as soon as its read. That is essentially what perfect DRM would enable us to do, I can control where the data is going and how its read.
me fail english? thats unpossible
I've more or less just sworn off buying music period. The last time I went to buy a cd, I spent ten minutes examining the small print to make sure it wasn't broken with copy protection of its own.
Call me crazy but I don't want to feel like an untrusted criminal for BUYING music. Treat me like a criminal, then I might as well act like one.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
FTFA: Microsoft has said it will stop selling music from MSN music from 14 November, when Zune goes on sale in the US.
...
From 14 November, customers on the MSN Music store site will now be redirected to Zune Marketplace or, as part of a 2005 legal settlement where Microsoft agreed that no music service would receive greater promotion than RealNetworks, Real Rhapsody.
MS just fscked everyone who got onboard with their PlayForSure program. This move only makes sense if MS decided that the ill will generated by screwing all their existing customers is outweighed by the the marketshare they'll gain from Zune
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
All depends on whose Kool-Aid you're drinking.
I find it impossible to not believe that one of the key selling points of DRM, is that it forces a consumer to re-purchase the same content over and over and over.
You want to listen to a track on your portable player? Sure, $1.
Want to listen to it on your cell phone? $2.50.
Want to burn it to a CD, maybe another $0.50.
Want to stream it over the internet, so you can hear it from your office/friend's computer/wherever? You're S.O.L.
You say it's to prevent "illegal distribution" but I'd argue that it could just as easily be to prevent format and space-shifting, since the 'loss' due to format shifting (if you consider the income that they wouldn't receive as a result of space and format-shifting a 'loss') is probably equal if not greater than the losses due to interpersonal sharing. With 'ideal' DRM, you could charge consumers per-track, per-listen, and then charge for every format and every possible way to enjoy the content. The revenue possibilities are unimaginable. Only the shortsighted see it as just a method to prevent seventh-graders from swapping discs.
At the end of the day it's academic whether the intent is to prevent "piracy" and it also prevents format-shifting, or whether it's intended to do both from the vary beginning. In most implementations, it does do both.
In my mind, regardless of what effect it might have on piracy, if it curtails established consumer rights or Fair Use, then it ought to be unacceptable. My ability to listen to the same piece of legitimately purchased music in various locations and in various formats is not an 'acceptable loss' in some epic battle between the valiant protectors of Intellectual Property and the American Way and the Evil Pirates.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Its because of idiotic, selfish moves like this that Microsoft, Sony etc will eventually lose the whole digital rights battle.
Companies like AllofMP3.com offer the consumers what they want - simply to pay a fee (ok, a small one!) and as a result have a file they can play on whatever products they have that support that common file type.
Unimpeded MP3 is enough to keep most of the world happy....but the major greedy companies just cant cope with the concept. Its not THAT much to ask for.
I still reckon a flat monthly fee to get access to everything is the way to go - and I would pay it. And in case MS and Sony are reading this, the average person would expect that fee to be LESS than their rent or mortgage payment.
There is no denying that getting a fee like that from just about everyone is likely to earn them more revenue than getting a little bit from some people - and encouraging a thriving trade in royalty free MP3 files where no-one pays a cent.
"legal" or "illegal" has nothing to do with DRM.
DRM does not suddenly unlock with the material is public domain or the copyright is expired or the use is a "fair use".
Perhaps, DRM attempts to prevent "unauthorized" use or distribution.
Yes, I know the marketing with pirates and stuff, wants you to think that this is a natural way of preventing illegal activity similar to robbing boats.
But DRM is a distribution and use control mechanism.
DRM does not prevent activity according to legal code. It prevents activity according to what use the DRM'er allows.
You cannot really say what the point/purpose of DRM is, as the true purpose may not match what is stated.
You can only say what DRM does. And that is to prevent certain use of material.
Try wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Manag
...realize that if you give douchebags, er, sorry, capitalists and habitual defectors, a mechanism for screwing you over (e.g. DRM), they will screw you over. And that's basically what RMS has been fighting against. And this little scam is yet another proof of that.
Reminder to self: don't feed the trolls anymore.
The point of DRM is to keep someone from making full use of some data they have, and I can't imagine what's good about that. It's certainly bad when it keeps me from putting my music on all my devices.
The problem is that many people fail to see that locking WMA files to Microsoft Plays For Sure devices is essentially no different than locking your DVD purchases to a DVD player.
But do we want to live in a society where the New York Times can't get a copy of the Pentagon Papers?
So, classified government documents are inherently evil, too?
DRM is a necessary evil. If you want to own a copy of someone else's intellectual property, you can either steal it, copy it, or buy it with a few restrictions. Those restrictions can be either implicit (you can't play cassette tapes in a CD player) or explicit (DRM software). The intellectual property isn't anything you have a human right to, so if you don't like the restritions, don't make the purchase. It's that simple.
As long as the Zune can play plain non-DRM encumbered MP3s, then there's really no reason for Zune owners who have purchased PFS music to not simply fire up their preferred P2P client and download MP3 versions of what they already purchased.
This space unintentionally left blank.
Just like DRM is the music studios protecting what they want to protect.
I do not want my music protected.
It's not your music. It never has been.
... and then they built the supercollider.
They are copying the ipod model and want to crush it. The problem is more than ever people are getting tired of the whole one manufacturer/style bit. They want variety. All microsoft is doing is making sure the zune doesn't have a chance. If people want a player locked into one store, they will get an ipod. Microsoft should release the zune to be compatible with all stores and even set up a team just to crack itunes drm so they can continually make the zune itunes compatible. Then the zune would have a chance. Hell they could strike deals with the media companies to be allowed to strip fairplay from a file and lock it with their own drm all in one process.
False. It has ALWAYS been OUR music.
Copyright is not property, it is merely a temporary loan from the public domain.
Just like DRM is the music studios protecting what they want to protect.
The difference is that they're protecting it by taking over my computer.
It's not your music. It never has been.
Yes, it is. I own a copy and I have specific rights in regards to it. Such as the first-sale doctrine, and fair use.
It sounds like the BBC got it wrong. None of the quotes from Microsoft say Zune won't play PlaysForSure, they all say that other PlaysForSure devices won't play content specifically bought for the Zune.
For very small values of 'for sure.'
Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
You have bigger problem than DRM if you are filtering your wife's Internet access. Technically smart or not, she has as much right to shop on whatever sites she wants as you. Talk about unreasonable restrictions...
"Plays... for Now"