Slashdot Mirror
Sony and Universal Prohibit Sharing Via Zune
ack154 writes "Engadget has a story about Sony and Universal Music apparently denying Zune owners the ability to 'squirt' songs by certain artists to other Zune users. That's right, if you've actually purchased songs from the Zune marketplace and happen to run into another Zune owner, you're prohibited from sharing certain songs. From the article: 'In a non-scientific sampling of popular artists by Zunerama and Zune Thoughts, it looks like it's roughly 40-50 percent of artists that fall under this prohibited banner, and the worst news is that there's no warning that a song might be unsharable until you actually try to send it and fail.'"
Which part of the license agreement do you feel Microsoft is violating?
Section 14 deals with DRM and essentially says you're bound to whatever restrictions Microsoft imposes.
Section 14.1 does not discuss sharing songs from Zune to Zune but rather limits how many of your personal computers can play the songs.
The last section explains how you can burn the purchased music.
Where's the violation?
You look like the perfect person to answer my question.
Why pay for music from allofmp3? It's (sort of) legal, but the artists still don't receive anything. Which means it's like buying from the RIAA, only cheaper. Which means it's like p2p, only more expensive.
Downloading from allofmp3 is about as "moral" as just straight downloading. What's the point in paying for it?
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
1. Faster than P2P: doesn't crap out when mom turns off the computer after Junior goes to school.
2. Kinda-sorta secure connection: nobody else snooping on your IP address.
3. Your choice of recording quality: no "fake" songs uploaded by the RIAA.
I'd buy THAT for a dollar!
[End Of Line]
While you may be right about Microsoft's ultimate goal to indirectly hurt the iPod, this strategy is not without risk for the record labels.
An out of left field idea that has been voiced before, but is now actually closer to reality. Apple has settled their dispute with Apple Records. A recent Slashdot story mentions a British band that made the Top-40 with an online-only release of their single.
How many artists would jump at the chance to directly release their music on iTunes?
There's plenty of money to be made in the music business without excessively bleeding the artists or the consumers. A direct to iTunes model could be a catalyst to ultimately changing the way artists reach their listeners. It's also Steve Jobs' tactical nuclear weapon in his dealings with the record labels.
That's actually a very funny argument as the fact is: Almost no funds collected as Royalties ever actually makes it to the artists, including those collected in North America for North American bands.
The levy collected on blank CD-R, memory cards, etc in Canada was not distributed to the artists, and only a portion of it went to the record labels as such. The rest of it? Disappeared in the accounting nightmare that is the recording industry; and do you have any idea what the Record labels did with the share they were given directly? Yep, swallowed it up in the accounting nightmare.
The artists get squat, even when everything is done on the up-and-up. So forget the issue of AoMP3 screwing the artists. They aren't. No more than anyone else is.
And they legally cannot pay the artists directly anyway, they have the pay the record labels.
I'm pretty sure the Zune would let your share non-DRM'd mp3s as well.