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.'"
So basically, the Zune is even more useless?
Why even bother including a transmission service if it isn't just limited to be barely useful, but not have it work at all for half of the songs you can legitimately get?
got sig?
Every song is treated identical, whether it's idie or big label crap it's all exactly the same.
So 40-50% of randomly-selected songs by two major labels can't be shared between Zunes. How much do you want to bet that the songs that can't be shared are top 40 hits and everyone already has them anyway? As long as people can still share indie labels and underground artists, then they can still expand their horizons by listening to songs their friends have and like. Personally, I just prefer a large LAN with everyone sharing their thousands of MP3s.
I remember reading about Steve Jobs complaining about the RIAA and the prices they want to charge (while he tried to keep it at $0.99 per song, regardless of song) and the RIAA complaining back that iTunes was too powerful and whatnot and was steamrolling them.
Now Microsoft was fairly nice to the RIAA and even paid them a royalty per MP3 player and now the Zune's most vaunted feature, their crippled wireless, can't even be utilized correctly. If the Zune had any steam amoung any geek circles (not that I think it did), this will surely kill it because it had few other advantages. It seems the RIAA and its member companies have royally screwed Microsoft.
I guess this shows how business truly gets conducted and how the RIAA should be dealt with when it is whining.
A present to Microsoft:
http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html
So lemme get this right, Sony and other music companies that force Microsoft do implement DRM.. but Microsoft is still at fault?
Its not as if Microsoft has a choice in this matter.
I've said it 1000 times but I'll say it again:
I haven't paid for music in almost 10 years... until this year: I've spent almost $700 on AllOfMP3.com
And all the evidence points to the fact that I'm not alone. AllOfMP3.com is making millions.
Illegal? Yes. Sure, whatever. So is Limewire. And there's no potential for revenue generation there.
Say what you will about AllOfMP3.com but there's a profound lesson there that the labels and the RIAA should learn from:
They're getting people who don't spend money on music to spend money. That's huge.
When the "real, de-facto" option for consumers is free vs. DRM crippled -- they should be rejoicing the fact that
there is, in fact a middle ground: DRM-free, high-quality music (not 128bit crap) at a price that
makes sense given the lack of shipping, manufacturing and retail overhead.
I still contend that if the labels embraced the pricepoint and the formula they'd be making multiples over
what they're making now.
The problem isn't piracy. The problem ultimately is greed.
Their business model is hilariously weak, and instead of adjusting to market forces like all other industries
must do -- they're attempting to ram it down the throats of consumers.
Good luck boys.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
I don't get it either, but it's certainly not surprising to see the music industry completely fail to apply common sense and go out of their way to shoot themselves in the foot yet again.
On the other hand, I'm reasonably sure this move is going to end up costing Sony and Universal money, so there's that to be happy about.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
If Microsoft can't make the application work as advertised or disclosed, they should offer a different set of features.
This is the best evidence yet that this whole "squirting" business was invented by an uninformed marketing department, that wasn't aware of the real-world limitations Microsoft's partners were going to place on the system.
For example, I'm sure someone would love to sell a radio that shows album art, but if doing so requires an internet connection for the radio, and regular updates of radio schedules from a web service, and rights negotiations, and on, and on, and on, the someone might want to consider selling something that would actually work, as opposed to something that's got bullet points up the wazoo but doesn't.
It isn't MS's fault the music is restricted, any more than it's Apple's in their case, but Microsoft's implementation within its restrictions is broken, and not going to win it converts in the MP3 market. Given, of course, that they're really serious about taking a share of the MP3 player market, or if all this isn't some twisted "tactical" maneuver to "position" some "platform" for some reason known but to Chair-Man.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
It isn't MS's fault the music is restricted, any more than it's Apple's in their case
I'd argue that it *is* Microsoft's fault to some degree. I can't think of any major technology company that's been going in for DRM as heavily as they have been. Even Sony was happy with a mere root kit for their DRM, and backed off when enough people complained; whereas in Vista MS has added not one but two levels of access *beyond* the formerly root-equivalent Administrator level to support their DRM schemes, and requires specialized hardware support right down to the silicon for HD content's DRM.
Microsoft has tremendous influence in the market, they could have done a lot to keep things relatively sane if they tailored their systems to the needs of their customers rather than the media industry. And, with just a little marketing savvy, they could have made a mint doing it as well, as Apple's phenomenal success with kinder gentler and more consistent DRM schemes has shown.
The media companies may be pushing this bullshit too hard to stop entirely, but the tech companies owe it to their shareholders as much as their customers to push back for solutions that are, if not entirely and ideally free, at least *usable*.
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
Well, if the marketplace decrees that Zune is doomed, I suppose the next logical step is for Microsoft and dia-RIAA to lobby the Donks in Congress to outlaw all non-crippled portable hardware, maybe titling the bill the Music Players With Disabilities Act.
I think it's convience. It's worth a few cents to have a known-good, high-quality, easily downloadable song picked from a large selection. (Note that I don't use AllOfMP3, mainly because I just never got around to it)...
Tell me, what kind of leverage does Microsoft have to negotiate terms here? The people providing the content lose nothing if they exclude their music from Microsoft's service.
The options are:
1) put in the stupid DRM features and get a license to sell the specified content
2) don't put in the stupid DRM features, and watch as people continue to buy iPods because of the diverse selection of music available in the iTunes store
3) don't sell a device at all
You know, the stuff that the "legit" music distributors are supposed to provide.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
It's really much worse than that. For all the complaints, and the long-term rivalry between Sony and Microsoft, they are STILL selling computers only with Windows, and making software for their equipment Windows-only, going out of their way to shut-out Mac and Unix systems.
And with their huge product line-up, and money to invest, they could single-handedly do more harm to Microsoft (by switching to something like Linux on their machines, and making Linux-compatible software for their devices) than the more-often touted small-game players like Dell. Plus, it would probably pay off for them, as they'd have a far better chance of capturing the pro market with Unix workstations and notebooks, preloaded with digital multimedia software, than with the clumsy joke that is Windows' multimedia capabilities.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Tell me, what kind of leverage does Microsoft have to negotiate terms here?
Why on earth should Microsoft even negotiate terms? It's not like all those 80-gig iPods out there are filled with songs purchased through iTMS; most of what they're playing are mp3s, not AACs.
If Microsoft wants to sell a *music player*, they don't need to negotiate terms at all. They don't even need to fucking *talk* to the likes of Sony. This is *Microsoft*. If they want to capture a significant percentage of the music player market, and maybe even take some of that market away from Apple, then they shouldn't negotiate terms. They should worry about making a music player that people are going to *want to buy*. Like, maybe something that plays every damned format of audio you can stick on it, including Vorbis. Maybe something that features improvements over the iPod interface (and there are quite a few interface improvements that should be readily apparent to anyone who has used one).
You know, give the customer something he's willing to buy, at a price he's willing to pay for it. Why should MS talk to Sony and BMG and Universal? Shouldn't they be talking to their target customers, instead?
Yeah pretty much your whole post is bullshit.
The reason Microsoft have to have restrictions on wireless (or indeed any) transfers is because if they didn't, Sony, Universal and everyone else would not license their music to be sold on the Zune market place and the Zune would be dead in the water.
Do you think that Microsoft enjoy all this bad press and confusion the crippled wifi functionality is bringing them? What exactly is in it for them asides from the teeny tiny percentage of the few sales they might see after a users' trial runs out and they buy the track in question? They'd make more money by not bothering with restrictions in the first place because they'd shift more units.
The reason Apple haven't put out a wireless mp3 player isn't because Microsoft simply 'beat them to it', it is because if Apple did, they'd be subject to the same restrictions. They decided that it'd be better than to leave it out entirely than to risk leaving users with a negative experience after dealing with all the record industries' draconian bullshit.
Anyone who thinks the iPhone is going to allow them to transfer music around freely like Mircrosoft 'should' have done with the Zune is in for a rude awakening. The way things are looking with the iPhone, you'll be lucky if you can set one of your mp3s as a fucking ringtone.
The fact that you think they haven't carefully thought about ALL of this simply stuns me.
Here's what happened at Apple:
Apple: Okay, it's $.99 or nothing.
MusicExec: But...
Apple: No.
MusicExec: We need...
Apple: No.
MusicExec: It's not enough...
Apple: No.
MusicExec: Okay fine.
Apple came up with FairPlay to give the Music people some peace of mind. As far as DRM goes, it's about as consumer friendly as I've ever seen. They've also limited iTunes sharing to the local subnet only. However, Apple also recognized that in order to grow the market they have to provide value to the consumer. Argue against that all day if you want. Millions of iPods and billions of tracks sold at the iTunes Music Store prove that they are providing value.
Here's what happened at Microsoft:
MusicExec: We need...
Microsoft: You got it.
MusicExec: We want...
Microsoft: Whatever makes you happy.
MusicExec: Jump.
Microsoft: How high?
Microsoft is not about creating value for consumers. It never has been. It's about dominating markets and doing whatever it takes to reach that end. Don't fool yourselves. Any value created for the consumer is an afterthought. This "limitation" was built into the Zune from the beginning. Microsoft is going to do whatever they can to get the labels to sign on so they have content to sell. This includes crippling the touted abilities of the Zune and paying the labels a percentage of each Zune sold. It has nothing to do with providing value to the customer.
Oh and one last thing. Do you really think the artists see anything of that $1 from each Zune sold?
For once in Apple's existance, they are competing in a market space with Microsoft where they are equal. They both sell music players, they both have music stores. May the best one win.
(and yes I'm voting for Apple)
"The avalanch has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote." -Kosh