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.'"

7 of 325 comments (clear)

  1. So... by b0lt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  2. I can think of worse things by ThanatosMinor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Apple bends the RIAA over, the RIAA bends MS over by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  4. Re:How do you want to be abused today? by RalphBNumbers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  5. Re:How do you want to be abused today? by Teresita · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:How do you want to be abused today? by Phanatic1a · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  7. Re:It's Microsoft, not Sony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.