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.'"

Comments

Yes, DRM is inherently evil

[Anonymous Coward]

People keep saying DRM isn't inherently evil. Why?

Over the past week, I've heard a number of people claim that there's nothing inherently evil about DRM: that it's just a neutral tool, and you can do good or evil things with it. I'm always a little surprised to hear this. After all, the media cartel calls it "Digital Rights Management;" that kind of Orwellian doublespeak makes it hard to think positive thoughts about it.

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. It's bad when it keeps me from recording the TV shows I watch, too. And even when it has potential security applications, I think it's bad. Sure, a company could use DRM-like technology to keep its internal correspondence away from competitors and journalists. But do we want to live in a society where the New York Times can't get a copy of the Pentagon Papers?

If DRM isn't inherently evil, it certainly doesn't have anything going for it.

Re:Yes, DRM is inherently evil

[Secrity]

"The drawbacks of its implementation may include preventing a legitimate licensee from playing the audio or video files on his/her various devices, but that is most definitely not the original intent."

It might be possible that it wasn't the original intent of content providers to use DRM to force users to buy multiple copies of the same material in order to use it on multiple devices, but I am sure that they now consider it to be a dandy feature; a feature that they don't want to lose.

Re:Yes, DRM is inherently evil

[Baricom]

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.

First of all, DVDs aren't locked to a specific DVD player - DRM-infected media is. Beyond that subtle point, I agree with you - that's why I don't buy encrypted DVDs.

So, classified government documents are inherently evil, too?

No, but the privilege of keeping documents secret is abused far too often. I would argue it's abused more often than it's used correctly. Of course, because I don't get to see what's classified, I can't know this for sure.

If you want to own a copy of someone else's intellectual property

Hold on there. The property belongs to the public; we're just renting it to the creators for a limited amount of time to reward them for benefitting the public good.

The intellectual property isn't anything you have a human right to

The Constitution of the United States would seem to disagree with you. It may not be a human right, but it's a granted right nonetheless.

if you don't like the restritions, don't make the purchase. It's that simple.

It's not that simple. The movie in the movie theater, the music on the CD, and the software in my computer? I own it, along with my neighbors. By intentionally making it hard to use, the media companies are stealing my property from me. It's no different than if I borrowed your car and forgot to return it for your entire lifetime.

The rich media companies would like you to believe that they are hounded by criminals every day, but that's simply not the case. They are the guilty party.

And no, I'm not a troll.

Re:I can only say...

[Firehed]

So then use one of the several DRM-stripping utilities. Or take comfort in the fact that if they modify their license in such a way and it retroactively effects your previous purchases in a negative way, you can almost certainly take them to court over it (despite what may or may not be in the EULA; I wouldn't know if it contains a clause about that, not being able to read legalese nor caring enough to find out).

I'm not saying you're wrong here, but it's not the world's most difficult problem to solve.

Re:They want to be apple

[Golias]

If people want a player locked into one store, they will get an ipod

That must be what they want, then. Because people are still mostly buying iPods. They are not just out-selling all the other players. They are outselling all the other players combined.

Why? I couldn't speak for others, but I know why I bought one.

1. The user interface is simply better. It's not even a vaguely subjective thing. It's better. I've yet to meet anybody face-to-face who honestly believes otherwise.

2. iTunes is a darn good media player on my computer, and the iPod works with it seamlessly.

3. They finally fixed that damned gapless playback issue.

4. Though I prefer buying CD's and ripping them as lossless files, iTMS is kind of spiffy for one-hit-wonder pop tracks.

5. It's easy to get peripherals for it. I have a car charger which doubles as a cradle and triples as a very good FM transmitter. My iPod + the Ford stock stereo makes the perfect "pull-out" audio system for my dashboard. I just take the whole iPod with me when I park, leaving my El-Cheapo radio and a strange-looking plastic stand in the car. It was the best of several just like it from different manufacturers. With no other portable music player do I have half as many options for gizmos like that.

6. My 80GB iPod plus my RAZR together take up less space than my first cell phone did by itself.