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.'"
One would think Microsoft would do their best to retain their customer base from MSN Music.
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.
This would of course be a huge problem...if MSN Music had any customers.
gameDB
Thats ok, I'm smart, I buy my music from itunes so I'll never run into a problem like this..
-
Anyone need a batshit insane realtor?
-
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
"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... We will not be performing compatibility testing for non-Zune devices, and we will not make changes to our software to ensure compatibility with non-Zune devices."
I fail to see anything the article says being backed up by anything Microsoft said.
It says the Zune marketplace content is not Plays For Sure content. It does NOT say that the Zune is not Plays For Sure compatible.
If it ain't broke, it needs more features!
You won't because iTunes is the easiest to break. You just have to burn it onto a CD.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
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
Way to go Microsoft. You took the gun, loaded it, aimed it squarely at Apple and the iPod, and then turned it around and shot yourself in the foot.
I'm not an MS basher any more than saying I don't like most of their software. I don't think they're utterly evil... But wow, that takes a special commitment to poor business decisions. Launch an system called "plays for sure" and then manufacture a incompatible product. I'm impressed.
What's sad is that they'll still probably sell a few to people who can't see passed the advertising and MS hype.
My rantings, only longer and with better spelling..
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.'"
Just when you thought microsoft could not pull anything stupider than they had lately... I mean really, what is this? Yes we have here a standard and we are backing it and we are making it the universally compatible technology, but wait, except for this major new product we're releasing. Doesn't this just incredibly piss off everyone - the customers, the manufacturers, the retailers? What on earth could they possibly be getting in exchange for all this horrid customer ill-will?
Bad Bill! No cookie!
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
How would that break the system? The iPod supports other music formats, not just Fairplay. The Zune could support PlaysForSure, which Microsoft pushed onto *other* PMP vendors, *and* Microsoft's PlaysForZune (or whatever). Then this wouldn't be a slashdot article at all.
This is really a bizarre move that makes it seem like Microsoft just wants an iron fist, to make sure the Zune only works with their music store and doesn't work with anything else at all, forcing customers to their music store.
This is why the whole system is fucked, and needs rebooting.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
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."
"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.
Normally I'm not the type of person to ask this question. But the Zune looks like some really interesting hardware that just isn't being used right, especially with regard to its wireless capability. Is there any chance to get linux on this thing so I can just do whatever I want with it, or is DRM implemented in hardware?
Aww cut em a break, people! They're, you know, redefining themselves. Being hip and cool-like. Like the next Apple! Or those crazy Linux and open source people, all get to do it, wether it's a new distribution or waay out in left field with the *BSD fruit. Why don't you all find another mega billion dollar company to pick on!
FLR
I've always liked "Pays for Sure" as a bit more informative
I'm sorry, but the story is inaccurate. By what the Microsoft person said: /. becoming if nobody reads the fucking article and realizes any mistake like this!
"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."
The way this says it, other PFS Device can't play Zune content, not that the Zune won't play the PFS. What kind of crap is
They used to at least work at dominating new markets, and used to succeeding, they've stopped trying and just expect markets to roll over for them now...
Here they obviously have decided that the Zune will be the killer player and they don't need their former partners because "they're microsoft". They screw over existing customers and partners, to bring forth a product that may or may not be adequate (the iPod is sure as hell adequate by the market behavior), all the while not even bothering to undercut their competition in price. Considering that the iPod has, to use their terminology an 'ecosystem' of OEM support (perhaps most notable umpteen different car stereos that can take an iPod and interface intelligently with it). Consumer wise their strategy seems to be fairly boneheaded and assumes success.
Another good example of late is their HPC move 'Compute Cluster Edition'. Here they are trying to enter a market absolutely dominated by linux. Linux proves invaluable to HPC configurations because of the sheer flexibility and power of the system, with either home-grown support with absolute zero licensing fees, or working with vendors that get their licensing fees, but don't enforce things in a draconian fashion. Now an associate of mine has their 'solution' demoed and was expecting that it would work okay, but probably miss some of the point, but it worked like crap on what it did do on top of *completely* missing the point, with the MS person just shrugged and said "it's our initial release, we will improve." I fully expected they would have done better, and also expected that they would recognize the competitive landscape and aggressively price. I didn't expect them to give it away, but their per-node licensing exceeds even the 'entry server' licenses of RH and Novell, and experience teaches that commonly clusters go no higher than the 'workstation' pricing for nodes.
MS has turned into a company expecting success to fall into their laps, and I hope this complacency will bite them in the ass.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
A lot of Americans copy music secretly, under provisions of the Secret Home Copying Act. I'd link to the act, but, you know, it's a secret.
I don't know about you, but if I had just been screwed like this I wouldn't pick the Microsoft option...
I can imagine that most people won't pick the M$ option if they do so much as hear about "Plays for Sure", which is practically unavoidable if you bought anything but an iPod. The majority of MP3 player owners did just that in the past, but M$ seems determined to change things in the future. WMP is a steaming pile of dog poop, their players don't let you buy an keep music online, what more can they do to make themselves and DRM look bad?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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.
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.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
It must have taken you twice as long to be totally wrong as it would have for you to have RTFA. If you had RTFA and got to the third paragraph before you tiny brain overflowed, you have read this: "But in a move that could alienate some customers, MSN-bought tracks will not be compatible with the new gadget."
Here's a reason to RTFA: You might look alightly less like a complete and utter fucking moron.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
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...
Yeah way better than the pod peoples players. A 4.3inch screen to check out your photos, watch movies, read text files, listen to the radio or play music encoded in mp3, ogg, flac or wav. No crappy bloated iTunes or like software needed its just drag and drop baby. Plus it runs on Linux!!! If you like proprietry formats and being locked in go buy a Zune or iPod. Me I'll stick with my A2.
Apple failed to open the Mac and has managed to keep 100% of 5% of the market, down from ~50% at peak. Contrast with the very open Intel x86 standard. (not just the chip, the whole architecture has competition)
Sony has introduced countless (now) irrelevent proprietary media types all of which either failed to ever get traction or started with a bang, but dropped off until they disappeared. Contrast with the very open CD media standard, and even the very licensable DVD standard, and the semi-open MP3 standard.
So basically, over time, the market tends to reward the most open standards, and relegate the most closed standards to the history books. Various levels of open survive for different terms, and various outside factors play into specific examples, but in general the most unencumbered standards tend to win.
The company that makes and publishes an open standard (read: the next 'CD', like Phillips did) will topple Apple, and will make a %age of the profits, while Apple's share will drop.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
Secondly, assuming you are right, why should I care if the RIAA folds and goes home? They no longer perform any useful service. We're not talking about the artists here -- and I will laugh long and hard if you try and tell me that the artists will stop because there's no longer a 'publisher' that takes >95% of the profit. In the internet age, anyone can publish themselves. It's the RIAA et-al as gate-keepers that work only to ensure their own profits and engage in monopolistic (oligopolistic specifically) and anti-competative behaviour to ensure that only their 'art' gets mass release. I highly doubt that to be true. Would sales plummet? Probably. But what would really plummet is the price, and that would encourage a lot of people to buy from a known source instead of hunting...specifically I could think that the band could sell directly on their site : and lots of people would buy direct from the band, knowing that the band was being paid.
And even if the sales plummet, the artists couldn't do much worse at this point... Interesting. Am I reading this right? Are you saying:
So if it's the former, then it proves that we no longer need the labels, as the music is being created without them. And if it's the latter and they're supposedly 'not profiting' from these minor releases than we have proof that they will invest despite low sales - meaning that it's not true that publishers will close-up if music doesn't 'sell'.
We're seeing a business model on it's deathbed...not art. Art will exist long after the RIAA is a footnote in history books.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
"Plays... for Now"
I agree.
My MP3 player is actually my Motorola RAZR V3i Mobile phone. I got it on contract for £0, to which I added a pair headphones (£12) plus a 1g Micro SD card (£28), for a total of £40. Its a certainly capable phone, with class 1 bluetooth which pairs well with my car bluetooth handsfree, and email capabilities. Its small enough, and has Drag and Drop MP3 playback - It has a standard Mini USB port, and can be set to appear as a USB mass storage device with no need for drivers, under Windows Linux, and MAC. It charges up when connected to USB. Its MP3 playback is of very good quality, though a little quieter than some players. Only drawback is it doesn't handle VBR files, though there is a firmware update in the works to fix that. As far as i know, there is NO capabilities to play DRM files.
Although there is an iTunes version of the phone, I didn't bother getting that, as Apple put a limitation of either 50 or 100 songs only can be transfered via the iTunes interface. The iTunes version still supports normal MP3 via drag and drop, with no limitations.
When I am also carrying my iPaq, I just take the transflash card out, and slot it into my iPaq via an SD adapter, and I get the same tunes on my iPaq (and I can place VBR files in a separate directory, which the iPaq CAN handle)
I believe the SonyEricsson Walkman line of phones also support Drag And Drop MP3 (my old S700 certainly did). They have DRM available, but its not mandatory.
Considering the heavy promotion of mobile phones here in the UK with MP3 capabilities, I wonder sometimes, if iPod/iTunes may be defeated this way (the SonyEricsson line, and the V3i was very popular, as well as Symbian Nokia, and Ericsson phones)
Have a nice day!
I'm sure Microsoft will compensate both customers adequetely.
Seriously, is there a single person in the world who doesn't shrivel with revulsion when they see the letters "MSN"?
Either that or the years and years of ignoring/closing windows with "MSN" at the top will have created a subconscious filter to block it out.
No sig today...