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.'"

Comments

All Access Squirt Passes

[DannyO152]

would have cost $2 per unit for Universal, I gather.

Re:All Access Squirt Passes

[Wandering Wombat]

Sounds like some sort of Microsoft Condom...

Re:All Access Squirt Passes

[iamacat]

Dude, if it is Microsoft you can not use a condom, which is Ok because you can not squirt anyway.

Re:All Access Squirt Passes

[milo_a_wagner]

Inability to squirt is the least of your problems if you're MS. It's all the STD's you'd be carrying...

Re:All Access Squirt Passes

[Roachgod]

To me this just smells of lawsuit from the users. False advertising anyone? How about selling a device known to be defective? Given all the insane shit I see go to court, I am sure that some lawyer, somewhere, could come up with something nasty to sue over with this.

Re:All Access Squirt Passes

[SageMusings]

The problem is the class action law suit would only benefit the 12 people who actually purchased a Zune.

So...

[b0lt]

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?

Re:So...

[Teresita]

You can't wi-fi RIAA songs to each other, but if someone ever hacks the Zune, they'll sit there and infect each other, especially if everyone is close together at the stadium or something.

Re:So...

[arekusu]

It's pretty useful as a source of jokes.

I mean, how many other logos can you make look like a cat-butt?

Re:So...

[mochan_s]

Zune has a bigger screen and Wifi compared to Apple iPod of same price.

It has a stupid firmware OS or whatever that runs on it full of DRM.

If there is a hacked firmware upgrade that disables all the nastiness, would you buy it? If you could upload your entire mp3 collection to your zune and transfer files via wifi to other people without any limitations?

Just look at the Sony PSP.

Re:So...

[hobo sapiens]

Actually, you make a good point...

I wonder how hackable this thing is? I mean, I've heard of people running Knoppix on an iPod, so why not? Anyone hear anything yet? I guess this is a start, but it'd be interesting to see if you could put a different OS on there or something, lose the DRM, and "squirt" music like a super-soaker in July. That almost makes this piece of crap worthwhile.

Oh yeah, I don't actually think the screen is bigger...I read that it's just turned sideways, so I guess perhaps one could argue it is laid out better. Yeah, I know...whatever, right?

Re:So...

[Secrity]

I might buy a Zune if there was hack that neutered the DRM, but I would NEVER use the word "squirt" in relation to the Zune.

Re:So...

[thegnu]

Both the big iPod and the Zune have a 320x240 screen.

Yeah, but the pixels have higher bandwidth! And you have to ask Microsoft if you can use them every time you turn the device off, which prevents Zune piracy. Which in turn prevents people selling you a Zune with AIDS on it. Just another example of Microsoft's cunning ingenuity!

Re:So...

[Caffeinate]

Both the big iPod and the Zune have a 320x240 screen.

But a 42" 1080p screen is still better than a 37" . . .

It turns out size DOES matter :p

Re:So...

[pwizard2]

You can't wi-fi RIAA songs to each other, but if someone ever hacks the Zune, they'll sit there and infect each other, especially if everyone is close together at the stadium or something.

Sounds like a great way to start bricking zunes in a chain reaction-type scenario.

All a malware author has to do is find a way to modify a zune player's firmware via some hypothetical exploit and then make it so it perpetually squirts firmware-modifying malware that stealth-installs, infects other players, bricks them, and then perpetually squirts to other players, etc.

What's that sound?

[Anonymous Coward]

A resounding "FUCK!" from all of those who have bought MSFT stock hoping that Zune will catch on.

Re:What's that sound?

[chill]

Yeah, both of 'em.

Re:What's that sound?

[Anonymous Coward]

"FUCK!"

Yes, that's "zijun" in Hebrew. Now you see the *real* reason for the product's name.

Re:What's that sound?

[Keeper]

But everyone else who bought in when it was in the $21 range last year is probably pretty happy with the 50% return on their investment right now...

Re:What's that sound?

[larry bagina]

Having bought AAPL at $20/share (pre-split), I feel pretty happy with the 800% return. I'm sure everybody who bought at $10 (pre-split) feels even better.

Re:What's that sound?

[Speed Pour]

New version of an operating system and a first generation product from MSFT...did anybody actually think this would be a good year for them?

Re:What's that sound?

[that this is not und]

Having bought AAPL at $20/share (pre-split), I feel pretty happy with the 800% return.

So you've sold it, and realized the 800% return? Or are you going to ride it down the iPhone slopes and get, maybe, 15%?

The one place Apple gets it right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Every song is treated identical, whether it's idie or big label crap it's all exactly the same.

Re:The one place Apple gets it right.

[russ1337]

----> Ah, sorry, thought you were talking about the Zune still... didnt read your title with the Apple reference.. Sry.

Re:The one place Apple gets it right.

[pauljlucas]

Every song is treated identical, whether it's idie or big label crap it's all exactly the same.

On the iPod, yes; in iTunes, almost: some songs are labeled "Album Only" and therefore can be bought only if you buy the entire album. In my random browsing, it doesn't seem to be many, however.

Re:The one place Apple gets it right.

[chris_eineke]

If every song is treated identically, won't everything be treated as the lowest common denominator, i.e. big label 'crap?'

How do you want to be abused today?

[Futurepower(R)]

A lot of people think that Microsoft is an abusive software company. However, the facts seem to fit the theory that Microsoft is an abuse company that sells software.

--
U.S. government violence has stopped the centuries-long violence in Iraq and created a peaceful democracy. NOT!

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[MSFanBoi2]

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.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[iluvcapra]

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.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[kfg]

Microsoft is an abuse company that sells software.

The joke is that this is not a joke.

KFG

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[GoodbyeBlueSky1]

Aha! No you want Room 12A, next door.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[RalphBNumbers]

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*.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[norminator]

Its not as if Microsoft has a choice in this matter.

At the very least they could label songs that are restricted. At the very least. The fact that they don't label them as such, and now people can't share the songs as advertised is pretty bad. Of course, the record companies are just plain brain-dead to think they should restrict free advertisements of their music. From what I understand, the whole sharing process is designed to encourage users to buy the songs they borrow, once their limited-use period runs out.

Morons. All of them.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[Teresita]

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.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[Geof]

Sony and other music companies that force Microsoft do implement DRM . . . Its not as if Microsoft has a choice in this matter.

Sony and the other music companies haven't forced Microsoft to implement anything. Microsoft could have chosen to manufacture an MP3 player and set up a music store selling MP3s from more enlightened companies and artists. They could have created their own niche in the market and targeted those not well-served by Apple's lock-in model, while also selling music playable on iPod, the dominant player. Maybe it's a long shot. But then, going head-to-head with iPod looks like quite the long shot anyway. Forced? Microsoft's a big boy; I'm sure it can take responsibility for its actions.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[iroll]

Um, iTunes tracks are in no way as crippled as Zune tracks.

It is Microsoft's own fault that they, one of the most powerful companies on earth, have bent over double-ass-backwards for the music corps. It's like they don't even TRY to negotiate--they do the most favorable thing the music corps can come up with, and hope that those good graces will somehow propel them forward.

Apple went to the table and hammered out a deal. Initiative wins the day over being a lickspittle. Fault: Microsoft.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[Keeper]

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

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[RalphBNumbers]

The grandparent was referring more to MS's long term behavior in relation to DRM than to the current situation.
But even in the immediate sense, MS might have benefitted from showing a bit of spine.

Basically, Microsoft has chosen to:
1) put in stupid DRM features,
2) *and* watch as people continue to buy iPods because when they buy something form iTunes they don't have to guess which of a handful of DRM policies dictates how they can use a particular song,
3) *and* continue to not sell their devices at all.

The whole point of Microsoft's tanking of Plays for Sure in favor of Zune was supposed to be a smooth consistent user experience. Giving half the Sony and Universal tracks you sell different restrictions than the others without telling the buyer is *not* smooth or consistent. They'd have been better off just skipping those tracks altogether if needs be.

That's basically what Apple has done in that kind of situation with Sony in Japan and Austrailia. If a label doesn't want to deal with your terms, just launch without them, and if you start making money they'll cave in eventually. Sacrificing usability for one label's whims is a loosing proposition in the long run; I would think that's especially true when you're trying to buy your way into the market, as Microsoft seems to be in this case.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[ben there...]

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.

I think they were aware of its limitations when they added the feature. In my opinion, it was never intended to be an actual useful feature. They just wanted WiFi as a bullet point on their features list, to differentiate their product from Apple's. Whether the feature actually did anything useful was an afterthought. That's why the WiFi was crippled from the start.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[dangitman]

So lemme get this right, Sony and other music companies that force Microsoft do implement DRM.. but Microsoft is still at fault?

Poor Microsoft, being forced to do things by the big bad bullies. So weak and powerless. I guess you have to pity these little insignificant companies with no bargaining power.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[ratz2]

It's Microsft's fault for representing it as having features and not also letting it be known that the feature won't always work because of limitations they knew about. Oooooh "THE SOCIAL"!!

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[hxnwix]

They think that they have no bargaining power, which puts them in the mood to make sacrifices. Their low marketshare would seem to warrant such thinking. Mind you, the corporate gameplan stipulates innevitable success. More leverage and better contracts will of course accompany this success.

Be that as it may, the Zune is clearly shitfucked. The only real question remaining is, whom will Balmer Blame?

Feel free to think of it this way: would you want to be the guy who probably should have made concessions to the labels 7 months ago?

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[shaitand]

An hour ago I would have corrected that funny moderation to insightful

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[Scarblac]

Make a device that allows limitless wireless sharing, plays every format it possibly can, with a rocking interface.

That is, how about making a product that's actually better than what the competition offers. It's just a small percentage that uses iTunes anyway, people rip from CDs, copy from friends or download.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[Phanatic1a]

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?

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[Keeper]

That's basically what Apple has done in that kind of situation with Sony in Japan and Austrailia. If a label doesn't want to deal with your terms, just launch without them, and if you start making money they'll cave in eventually. Sacrificing usability for one label's whims is a loosing proposition in the long run; I would think that's especially true when you're trying to buy your way into the market, as Microsoft seems to be in this case.

And if Microsoft was the only entity coming to the party, that strategy might work for them now too. But they're not. They're competing in an established market, where the market leader nets the vast majority of sales, and where the market leader has an established/loyal following.

I guarantee you if Sony and Universal music were not available in the Zune store, you'd be sitting here laughing at Microsoft because their music selection was non-existant. And you wouldn't buy one. And neither would anyone else.

So, they made a choice that sucks, but still puts them (worst case) at feature parity with the market leader. Scenario 1 is still FAR better than scenarios 2 and 3. In fact, you could even argue that the companies preventing their music from being shared will sell fewer songs than the companies that do, meaning that eventually they'll see all the money they're losing and ask to turn it on.

I'm not arguing that DRM doesn't stink, and they got a crapton of things wrong with the Zune. But regarding the DRM crap, everyone is throwing the wrong party under the bus. I guarantee you they didn't WANT to waste time, money, and effort putting this crap into a device.

Spend 5 minutes running through the various options in your head; consider the market environment, consider what (normal) people want, consider the demands of the music companies, consider what the law allows, and consider what kind of negotiating leverage you have available.

Your suggestions so far demonstrate a lack of understanding of the market environment and the kind of leverage Microsoft has available.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[evilviper]

In my opinion, it was never intended to be an actual useful feature. They just wanted WiFi as a bullet point on their features list,

Sounds to me EXACTLY like everything else Microsoft has ever done...

Sure, they'll advertise the millions of things Windows CE can do, but just fail to mention it's ridiculously crippled, and just BARELY fits the most basic definition... "Word Processing" means a crappy equivalent of notepad, with no options and horrible input methods that make it impossible to use even for trivial, one-word notes. "Video player" fails to mention the limited formats, the horrible performance, the awful interface, the lack of any features above bare-bones file playback, etc.

Meanwhile, Microsoft's competitors have infinitely better products, but Microsoft manages to fit more buzzwords into the product release to trick people into believing it's anything but the complete piece of crap it is.

Sorry about the rant... But I see blatantly obviously dishonest crap like this from them just about every day.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[Keeper]

You just described the RIAA's wet dream -- an excuse to sue a company with $50B in the bank for copyright infringment.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[Keeper]

What would you say if their target customers want a huge music store that has all of the music they want to buy?

"Why, people don't actually buy their music that way, so it doesn't matter!" you answer.

Except it does. Because that's how the mass market is making its decision. Kind of like how people buy SUVs for their off-roading capabilities, even though they never take them off of paved roads. They need to know they COULD if they wanted to.

There are players out there exactly like you describe. They play just about every kind of audio, they have a better interface than the iPod, the overall featureset is better, and they're cheaper. Except they don't sell to the masses like the iPod.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[ArsenneLupin]

..., or if all this isn't some twisted "tactical" maneuver to "position" some "platform" for some reason known but to Chair-Man. Chair-Man, haha ;-)

hihi

hoho

I can picture it now, 20 years from now, when in casual conversation somebody wonders where the term "chairman" comes from, some amateur ethymologist will pipe up and claim it came from that infamous chair-throwing episode. And nobody will believe that the word already existed before.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[Carrot007]

of course it does, other companies try to get the best for the end customer.

ms just bends over and lets the corperations have whatever they ask for even if its stupid.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's phenomenal success with kinder gentler and more consistent DRM schemes has shown.

I'll give you consistent, Apple even put DRM on the songs the indi labels don't want drm on (check the same songs on emusic and itunes), but..

.. the MS based Music stores I've tried have has had less restrictive DRM than iTunes (more or less the same on cd burning, but they allow you to have more copies on more machines/devices of same song, legally - redownloads of songs because you lost it or want it on more than one machine, copy to more mp3players and from player to another machine, etc.).

That Apple has a image as more kind in this area, when the facts contradict it, is actually quite fascinating. A combination of genius marketing departement and the user friendliness of a closed (and well designed) system.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[PopeRatzo]

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.

So you think one of the biggest companies in the world, when rolling out one of their headline products, just didn't realize there might be problems with people sharing their music. They never heard of DRM, right? They just let an "uninformed marketing department" get around all the product development people and somehow stick that feature on the Zune.

Where's my dummy-stick?

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[jimicus]

Microsoft could have chosen to manufacture an MP3 player and set up a music store selling MP3s from more enlightened companies and artists.

While this is very true, it completely misses the point of any business like Microsoft's. It's a numbers game - sure, they could have teamed up with someone like Magnatune to offer a deal on downloading tracks, but how many people do you know go out and buy an MP3 player on the strength of its links with an obscure record label that most people have never heard of?

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[PunkOfLinux]

Could you please be so kind as to provide a link to one of these? I've been looking for one, and I can't find a good one.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[BroncoInCalifornia]

It isn't MS's fault the music is restricted.

But Microsoft is responsible for how they advertise and promote the product. The are responsible for the veracity of the product description. If the feature is semi-broken for whatever reason, then they have an obligation to come clean about this. They also have an obligation to indicate which songs are "squirt" impaired before a customer makes the purchase.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[v1]

I find it interesting just how far behind microsoft is lagging. Just about the time the Zune was catching up with the ipod in features and usefulness (and it never really made it), out comes the iPhone. It's like a leisurely drive down the autobahn in a corvette, and you look in your back mirror and see a pinto closing in on you. Small chuckle. Romp on gas. Watch pinto rapidly disappear into nothing.

Such an absurd presumption from Microsoft. It's not even serious enough to be considered a joke.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[skymt]

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).

When has Microsoft ever made a product that sells on its own merit? Windows only owns the OS market because it's pre-installed on almost every PC on the market (thanks to the infamous IBM contract from the DOS days). MS Office won the office-suite wars because it fit the best with Windows. Their server and software development suites followed basically the same formula. Do I even need to mention Internet Explorer?

The XBox 360 is a possible exception. I believe it can compete in features, quality, and (most importantly) game selection with any other console on the market. On the other hand, it had a year-long head start on the competition, which the Zune certainly did not.

So it looks like Microsoft products have two ways to become successful: either integrate with an existing product in ways that the competition can't, or hit the market first with a must-have feature. The Zune did neither, and that's why it's failing.

In fact, I'd say that by now it's impossible for Microsoft to beat the iPod. As a portable device, there's hardly any room for OS integration (besides syncing, which iTunes handles well enough already). And there are very few features left for Apple to add to the iPod, especially now that they rolled a Wi-Fi-enabled smart phone into it.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[Inner_Child]

All I ask for is a stable version of Rockbox for the Sansa e200 series. No OGG, an apocryphal playlist format, and a kludgy interface are all that keep this line from being truly great.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[that this is not und]

I can picture it now, 20 years from now, when in casual conversation somebody wonders where the term "chairman" comes from, some amateur ethymologist will pipe up and claim it came from that infamous chair-throwing episode. And nobody will believe that the word already existed before.

Only in Wiki-world, where blogs are king.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[Karlt1]

"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."

Why is it that back in 2003, Apple was able to get the very relaxed DRM from the major labels -- up to three computers (now five), burn an unlimited number of copies to CD's that can easily be re-ripped withou protection, an playback on and unlimited number of iPods, and Microsoft can't negotiate any better with the labels?

Even more recently, when the labels said they wanted variable pricing, Apple said No. Who won? When Sony refused to license content in Japan unless Apple did allow variable prices, Apple launched without Sony and six months later Sony came on board.

When the movie studios wanted tighter restrictions before they would allow Apple to sell movies, did Apple tighten the restrictions? No, Apple launched with just Disney and still outsold Movielink and CinemaNow and Amazon's Unbox,

So Microsoft does have a choice. Imagine if Microsoft had told the labels that the only way they can gain leverage over Apple is by having another strong competitor in the market and if they would allow more flexibility Microsoft could eventually be the one to do it. I'm convinced that Microsoft has absolutely no one with any talent to negotiate.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[toddestan]

How so? The iPod currently has no sharing capablity at all, and even if you have your computer handy with iTunes, the only way to share a song by placing it on someone else's iPod involves several minutes of your time and wasting a CDR. The Zune certainly sucks, but I can't see how a even a very limited sharing capability is worse than none at all.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[RalphBNumbers]

Japan, where Sony first balked at working with Apple, *was* an established market when Apple decided to launch without Sony. Almost everyone had a music-phone, and people in Japan actually *used them*, to the point that a lot of analysts thought the iPod was doomed in Japan even before they knew Sony was holding out. Apple still has only about half the market there, as opposed to ~80% in other areas, but they eventually got their songs, on nice consistent terms.

The fact is, people want a product they can at least pretend to understand, and *consistency* gives them that. The average person doesn't even use the online music store associated with their player, beyond perhaps buying a handful of songs to try it out; most people won't even notice if a store has 1 million songs rather than 1.3 million. It's just not nearly as big a deal as you're making it.

The loss of a few hundred thousand songs is a temporary hiccup that will eventually correct itself if the product is impressive enough in other terms (it isn't quite yet in this case imho, but MS has to address that problem anyway if they want to gain market share), the loss of consistency in what is allowed by DRM will mar the system permanently.

You say:
I guarantee you if Sony and Universal music were not available in the Zune store, you'd be sitting here laughing at Microsoft because their music selection was non-existant. And you wouldn't buy one. And neither would anyone else.

The thing is, I'm *already* not buying one, and neither is anyone else for the most part. MS needs to *improve* their products to change that, not cripple them further so they'll have access to more songs to fail to sell. If MS can make a system slick enough to beat the iPod at it's own game, signing on record labels will take care of itself; if they can't then no number of songs will gain them market share.

If MS is ever going to take market share from the iPod, which is clearly their goal, they need to build a consistent, easy to understand device with at least one major advantage over Apple's offerings to overcome people's general tendency to stick with what they know. Wireless could have been that advantage, but they lost their focus and DRMed it into uselessness, and now they're destroying their chance at consistency as well.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[d_jedi]

The problem here is that there is no indication (at least, according to the article.. I don't own a Zune, and don't plan on it, so I can't verify..) on the Zune store that any of these tracks have these extra restrictions. So you can't, say, give a big FUCK YOU to Sony for not allowing their tracks to be "squirted" (is that really what they call this? Damn marketing dept..) by not buying any of their tracks. It's only AFTER you buy the song and try to transfer that you find out that this is, in fact, verboten.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[WNight]

You sound like junior management, repeating the standard wisdom without understanding it.

What numbers?!

What masses of people is Microsoft reaching with this crippled device? Nearly zero. So obviously your way doesn't work. People don't care about having some full populated online store when they can't use any of the music. They've already got an online store, called Kazaa, without DRM. So they'll buy a device that allows them the most real usage.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[SeaFox]

"That's basically what Apple has done in that kind of situation with Sony in Japan and Austrailia. If a label doesn't want to deal with your terms, just launch without them, and if you start making money they'll cave in eventually."

And if Microsoft was the only entity coming to the party, that strategy might work for them now too. But they're not. They're competing in an established market, where the market leader nets the vast majority of sales, and where the market leader has an established/loyal following.

And that market leader also has more favorable DRM terms already in effect. Microsoft has something to offer (a big potential customer pool due to the monop--er popularity of their operating systems). Microsoft should have rejected per song restriction changes with a simple "we need uniform rights to be competitive". Apple had gotten them already, so it would be hard for the labels to argue they were ceding too much control. Not getting sharing rights to all songs is especially unforgivable with the deal with Universal and the wireless sharing being the supposed break-out feature of this device. Microsoft was having to pay a fee Apple was not on top of the regular cut and Apple still got better usability.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[spwolfx]

And what exactly has Apple done against DRM? Nothing. There is no difference between Apple and Microsoft.
At least with MS, you can share half of the songs....

If MS had 90% of mp3 market, sued every maker who tried to make their marketplace songs work in their own player, and let the users with no option than playing it on their own players (other than buring them to cd, and re-ripping them - sounds like lots of fun), Gates would have been in jail 3 years ago...

In fact, Apple is one of the biggest backers of everything DRM... one of the most closed companies in the world is Apple...
MS is far from innocent little baby, but so is Apple... both are huge corporations that only care about their huge profits.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[jimicus]

Say what? The zune, like more or less every player out there, supports plain ordinary MP3. The problem is that Microsoft are essentially trying to compete with Apple in a market Apple have neatly demonstrated they understand pretty well - make sure your device does one thing and does it well; anything else is just fluff.

Microsoft have tried to add a unique selling point in the form of wireless squirting, but as far as USPs go it's pretty lousy - first you need to meet someone else with similar taste in music and the same MP3 player, and now it's discovered that there's no certainty you'll be able to squirt any particular song. Seeing as Apple have something like 80% of the market, the chances of that happening are fairly slim.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[WNight]

If people want an MP3 player, they'll buy a generic one. If they want some specific feature of the Zune they may buy it instead.

So, what features does the Zune have? Wifi? Not really, as I was saying, because there are so many limitations on what you can wifi around that the no-fuss nature is gone and you're half-way to the hassle of plugging in a cable.

You say MS did this for the masses, in a numbers decision. That would mean that they think that crippled wifi + online music store > non-crippled wifi + kazaa. Obviously, they're delusional. It's a fantasy that the "masses" want another boring shoping experience and that their main turn-off is less than EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD in stock. We'd much rather have devices that work and the ability to mix songs between stores and devices seamlessly.

Their fixation on numbers caused them to forget that some "numbers" (customer satisfaction) are more important. Not in some fuzzy "aww, we loves the customers" kind of way, but simply in that people don't buy devices that suck at what they're for.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

The masses use Kazaa?!
If that's true, why is the iTunes Store getting any business at all?
MS clearly made a few thousand goofs with the Zune, but I'm guessing that they thought they'd make more money if some Zune owners bought tracks from the Zune store than if everyone bought them from Kazaa. After all, MS runs the Zune store. They don't get a cut from Kazaa; hey, the RIAA didn't always get cuts from Kazaa.
Oh, and I think that the wifi, when it works, has got to be more convenient that hooking a cable between two random persons' Zunes. Of course, DRM-free songs through the cable might be a better value, since maybe they'd stay DRM-free that way...

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[WNight]

Sure, they thought they'd screw with the Zune to the point that DRMed music was more convenient than ripped or downloaded, and that then the only obstacle to buying would be that the DRM wasn't tight enough...

As I say, it's "numbers" thinking, but they're wrong about the numbers.

The defense for Microsoft's actions was that they were thinking of the big picture, the number of legit sales they'd get a piece of would outweigh the number of unit sales lost to advanced users. The problem is that anyone who uses MP3s more than DRMed WMAs, or who doesn't like buying online music, is one of their advanced users who isn't going to buy the device. As that's almost everyone, there's nobody left over to fork money into their pockets through music sales.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[Keeper]

The thing is, I'm *already* not buying one, and neither is anyone else for the most part. MS needs to *improve* their products to change that, not cripple them further so they'll have access to more songs to fail to sell.

What I find most interesting about this situation is that the "crippled" feature is something their competition doesn't offer at all.

If MS can make a system slick enough to beat the iPod at it's own game, signing on record labels will take care of itself; if they can't then no number of songs will gain them market share.

Exclusive content always gives you some market share. It certainly isn't the only factor, but it IS a factor. In this case, Apple would have been the company with the exclusive.

Or are you seriously going to argue that an iPod that only allows music from n-sync to be purchased would sell the same as an iPod that allows all iTunes music to be purchased?

Personally, I like the Zune. I like the fact that it doesn't have a scroll wheel. I like the fact it isn't shiney as hell. I think the UI is slick. I'd buy one if their client-side software didn't fall flat on its face. But it does, which is why I'm getting a clix when the 4gb models get back in stock... :)

I could care less about the DRM/sharing crap -- I'm not going to use it; purchased DRM music is in the worthless category until a "standard" used by all the major players takes hold -- a standard that won't require me to repurchase music every time I think about purchasing a new player (imagine if you had to buy all new cd's every time you bought a new cd player...that's what the current DRM landscape looks like to me).

Unfortunately, there won't be a standard of that type until either the iPod dies, or Apple gets its head out of its ass and allows third parties to playback FairPlay encoded content.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[Keeper]

Microsoft doesn't have a customer pool to offer the labels. That's why they're creating a new device. People aren't going to buy a Zune because Microsoft makes windows -- in fact, if anything you'll see that Microsoft's marketing goes out of its way to keep the Zune brand separate from the Microsoft name.

The labels aren't happy with Apple. They want a better deal than what they have with Apple, but they can't get it because Apple owns the market (if they cut Apple off, they'd lose more than they'd gain). In order to get a better deal, Apple's dominance needs to be lessened. Not only that, but they have to get their foot in the door before the "disruptive" device becomes popular (once it becomes popular, they lose their leverage again).

The label's worst case is the status quo. If they broker a deal with Microsoft that is the same as Apple's, they're encountering their worst case scenario. In that situation, you bail instead of cutting a deal. This isn't rocket science. It's business.

If they don't get what they want from Microsoft, they'll pass and try to get it from the next player who might take Apple out of the picture.

Re:How do you want to be abused today?

[Keeper]

One that I've had personal experience with:
* http://www.iriveramerica.com/prod/ultra/clix/index .aspx

I bought the 2gb model for my girlfriend last year and was really impressed with it. I'm probably going to get myself in a few months, if life doesn't throw any unexpected surprises my way.

(cross country moves ... always fun)

Surprised?

[Gemini_25_RB]

I'm not. Saw this one coming when they announced the song sharing thing. I had hoped, however, that the giant music conglomerations would grow up and let it go through. Zune shared music can only be played a few times, so what's the harm in a little advertising?

Re:Surprised?

[NormalVisual]

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.

Re:Surprised?

[Technician]

I had hoped, however, that the giant music conglomerations would grow up and let it go through.

I more expected the industry to simply withold the content so the Zune would have very little music to offer. It would be like the Beatles who simply refuse to permit distribution in any format except physical albums in either LP or Compact Cassette.

It would have been funny if the Zune marketplace had very little content and then the remainder of providers pulled out simply due to too small a marketshare.

Re:Surprised?

[Mr Pippin]

Maybe the artists in question are only worth listening to a few times.

Re:Surprised?

[Teresita]

"It would have been funny if the Zune marketplace had very little content and then the remainder of providers pulled out simply due to too small a marketshare."

Two years from now that Goodwill thrift store a hop and skip away from Microsoft where I get all my software is gonna have more $4.99 Zunes than they had Jar Jar Binks action figures in 1999. They'll stick 'em over by the 8-tracks.

Re:Surprised?

[ISurfTooMuch]

If Zune sharing is advertising, then why would the music companies want that? After all, since most of what they put out these days is shit, they'd rather you buy it sight unseen, as it were. If people could hear it once or twice, they'd be done listening to it and have no desire to spend money on it.

Re:Surprised?

[Grishnakh]

I might be shooting myself in the foot here, but I'd love to have a Zune for dirt cheap. Not because I care about the player itself, but because I want the hard drive inside. It can be transplanted into video ipods, as well as my iriver H320. Of course, it'd be better if they came out with a 40GB Zune with Toshiba's new MK4008GAL 5mm-high drive before all the Zunes started getting liquidated on Ebay; that would double my H320's capacity without requiring any case modifications.

Re:Surprised?

[oakgrove]

Well, it seems to me like it is either one of two possibilities:

1. The songs suck so bad that they are afraid people are going to hear them 3 times and get so sick of them that they won't want to buy.

2. They think people are going to hook the zune into their soundcard on the back of their PC's and copy the songs instead of buying.

Just sayin.

Re:Surprised?

[RipTides9x]

I think the Music Industry has run out of their own feet to shoot and are starting to aim at others.. like MSFeeT.

Re:Surprised?

[Teresita]

"I might be shooting myself in the foot here, but I'd love to have a Zune for dirt cheap. Not because I care about the player itself, but because I want the hard drive inside"

At the Las Vegas CES 2007 Summit, A-DATA showcased a solid state disk hard drive based on Flash technology with a capacity of 128 GB. So pretty quick, bashing a Zune to dig out the hard drive will be like ripping apart this to get the single-density 5 1/4 inch floppy drives.

Re:Surprised?

[Grishnakh]

So what? Just because someone has a SSHD with 128GB doesn't mean that much. For one thing, how large is it? If it's larger than 1.8" by 5mm thick, it's useless for portable devices. For another thing, how much does it cost? If it costs more than $100 or so, it's too expensive (something that's been a problem with flash storage for a long time; only now is it getting competitive).

For your information, a few companies have introduced 1.8" form factor SSHDs. Here's a couple of articles about them:
article 1
article 2

There's a couple of problems with them. 1) The largest size is 32GB. While that's slightly larger than the 30GB drive in the Zune and iPod, it's only just-as-good, and not much of a reason to upgrade if you already have a 30GB mechanical drive. 2) They're expensive. They even admit this in the articles. While they do have much lower power consumption than regular drives, no one's going to pay $1000 for an ipod just because it has flash instead of a hard drive.

Maybe in 5 years when the prices are much lower, hard drive-based DAPs will be only a memory, but for now this technology isn't ready.

However, I do hope I can get my hands on some of these flash hard drives at that time, since my H320's drive will probably need to be replaced again by then. And since the DAP market is going steadily downhill, with less and less competition, I won't have the option of upgrading to a new DAP.

What next?

[Draconix]

Earbuds/headphones that automatically mute when someone other than their owner tries to listen to music with them?

Re:What next?

[iluvcapra]

Earphones that measure your skin conductance while listening to songs, and then auto-rate the song based on your pleasure response. On the back end an E-bid style site allows music producers to buy the marketing data.

Microsoft: What do you want to think today?

Re:What next?

[Mex]

Shhh! Don't give them any ideas!

Re:What next?

[vought]

Earbuds/headphones that automatically mute when someone other than their owner tries to listen to music with them?


We're working on this. All the user has to do is re-enter their Zune Marketplace PIN when the earphones sense a temperature swing. This will-reenable playback.

Here at Microsoft, we're really excited about the new features we can leverage our technology to bring to you.

-Steve Ballmer, Robbie Bach, and the Rest of the "Don't get it Gang", Working for You, The User.

Re:What next?

[MichaelSmith]

auto-rate the song based on your pleasure response. On the back end an E-bid style site allows music producers to buy the marketing data.

No, you pay up front for the enjoyment rating of the song. If your enjoyment goes beyond what you have paid for they bill you again.

Re:What next?

[rishistar]

Won't bother me. I'll still be able to listen to anything in my Supertramp collection as much as I want without being billed again.

Re:What next?

[SpooForBrains]

Or even, earphones that do a complex analysis of your needs and wants, process it, and then inevitably play something which is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike music.

Re:What next?

[BRSQUIRRL]

No, you pay up front for the enjoyment rating of the song. If your enjoyment goes beyond what you have paid for they bill you again. Shhhhhhh...you're joking, I know, but an RIAA exec somewhere is probably thinking right now, "hey, that's not a bad idea..."

Re:What next?

[WilliamSChips]

Doesn't the RIAA already do that for us?

Re:What next?

[AlgorithMan]

Microsoft: What do you want to think today?

well... what do you allow me to think today?

Heh.

[SatanicPuppy]

Microsoft: Haha jackasses! The Xbox 360 is outselling the hell out of your overpriced console and there is nothing you can do about it!

Sony: O Rly? Squirt this bizitches.

Ahhh, the mysterious world of corporate interaction.

Re:Heh.

[Cheapy]

One slight difference: Xbox360 is selling.

The Zune is not. Far more damage is being done to Sony than the other way around.

Re:Heh.

[evilviper]

Ahhh, the mysterious world of corporate interaction.

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.

Re:Heh.

[mgabrys_sf]

re:"Xbox360 is selling"

Not in Japan - oh and they like games there - might be an important market if you want to secure Japanese titles overall:

For the week of Jan 14th "The Xbox 360 sold just 9,035 units" - or about 35% of what Sony sold.

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_conte nt&task=view&id=4570&Itemid=2

Re:Heh.

[jZnat]

Don't forget that most Japanese people have hardons for Sony and hate Microsoft (probably for being an American company who doesn't care about Japanese culture, so I don't blame them)...

Like this matters

[RichPowers]

It'd be a miracle if two strangers with Zunes were ever in the same area so they could "squirt" songs together. Man, that sounds wrong.

Re:Like this matters

[chris(pinecone)]

Hey, anyone want to meet in the park to squirt each other pictures of our families?

Re:Like this matters

[value_added]

Man, that sounds wrong.

Even more wrong if you speak a language where "squirt" typically means exactly what you think it means.

I'll predict that if Microsoft markets the zune internationally, the advertising campaign will fail even more badly.

Re:Like this matters

[Anonymous Coward]

The term "squirt" was actually used long before Zune by wireless and satellite engineers. Sending a bit of data wirelessly to a satellite was termed "squirting". It did not come from MS marketing and nobody at MS really likes it either.


There, in order to simulate telephones, researchers had figured out how to digitize speech, squirt it into the computer, then turn the bits back into sound waves afterwards.

You only have so much radio capability (power for transmitters, sensitivity for receivers). You can cover the whole area in every direction from the airplane, or you can squirt it all in one direction.

Squirt the bird: To transmit a signal to a satellite.

Re:Like this matters

[davecarlotub]

Hey, anyone want to meet in the park to squirt each other pictures of our families?
I heard somewhere that George Michael was recently spotted squirting his songs to various passersby at a rest stop in New Jersey.

Re:Like this matters

[sir99]

Squirting a satellite sounds like a superhuman feat. Squirting a "handheld device" sounds, umm, less impressive.

Re:Like this matters

[alshithead]

What's really funny is that "squirt" has been used in multiple sci-fi's to ACTUALLY transmit data. I'm sure Heinlein used it and I'm also just as sure I've seen it used by other authors.

Re:Like this matters

[dangitman]

I'm sure Heinlein used it and I'm also just as sure I've seen it used by other authors.

Well, that's what you'd expect from sickos like Heinlein.

Re:Like this matters

[ArsenneLupin]

Squirting a satellite sounds like a superhuman feat. Just point your third antenna to 19.2, gently rub your HPA, excite your Klystron, and squirt away!

Re:Like this matters

[iamacat]

You should read "Diamond Age" sometime.

Re:Like this matters

[om3ga]

You're right, it is very, very wrong.

Re:Like this matters

[dimeglio]

Squirting doesn't translate well either...

What's next? Zunes to support only one earphone so you can't share the other with you pal? I hope I'm not giving anyone any ideas.

Re:Like this matters

[jez9999]

Squirt the bird: To transmit a signal to a satellite.

That's... one interpretation. I doubt it would be seen as such in this country.

I can think of worse things

[ThanatosMinor]

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.

Re:I can think of worse things

[falcon5768]

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?

Your right, but the kicker is the fact that people who bought a Zune paid a Universal Music tax on them (Microsoft gave money to Universal for using their music on the Zune, with Universal threatening to try to pull the same shit on Apple and others) only to have Universal deny them the ability to USE the songs as the device is designed to use them AFTER paying that tax. As if the 3 play and dead deal wasnt enough, they are blocking you from even doing THAT on some songs. At that point why dont they just chain you up and throw you in maximum "pound me in the ass" prison while they're at it.

Basically Universal stole your money pulled down your pants and tripped you on the Zune. Regardless of them being top 40 hits or not, Universal really fucked over their customers.

Not to just pick on them though, supposedly its every label that has a bunch of songs you cant transfer.

Re:I can think of worse things

[Firehed]

Personally, I just prefer a large LAN with everyone sharing their thousands of MP3s.

What, the Internet? Works great for me, too :)

Re:I can think of worse things

[Tim C]

At that point why dont they just chain you up and throw you in maximum "pound me in the ass" prison while they're at it.

Even for slashdot, that's a ridiculously large leap to make.

Microsoft won't even follow it's own legalese anym

[Avillia]

Zune terms of service:

==========
14. Content Usage Rules
All music you purchase or acquire on a subscription basis from the Zune Marketplace is subject to this agreement and any other applicable terms and conditions, including limitations imposed by the use of digital rights management (DRM) technology. Content may be used for personal, non-commercial use only.

14.1 Purchased Content Usage Rules. You are authorized to use the content that you purchased from the Zune Marketplace on up to five (5) total authorized computers.

You are entitled to burn purchased content, and playlists containing purchased content, to CD solely for personal, non-commercial use. There is no limit to the number of times you can burn an individual song; however, you may only burn the exact same playlist a maximum of seven (7) times.
==========

Microsoft won't even follow it's own legalese anymore. That's good to know. Well, hey, good news is, there are shitball lawyers out there that aren't on Microsoft's payroll, perhaps one will bless us with a class-action filing...

Not really a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

if you've actually purchased songs from the Zune marketplace and happen to run into another Zune owner...

Given the near astronomical odds of actually finding another Zune owner within a 20-mile radius that you'd want to share your music with, I think this problem is pretty much moot.

Apple bends the RIAA over, the RIAA bends MS over

[rolfwind]

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

Well planned product offering....

[zappepcs]

Haven't we learned, don't pay for it till after sp2 or later.

Is the HAHA tag applicable here?

Fine with me.

[inode_buddha]

Fine with me. I'm still trying to scrub my brain out after picturing Ballmer squirting. *shrug*

Re:Fine with me.

[denzacar]

Curse you! Now I have that picture in my head.

Only mine has sound too.

That's the "feature" we were all waiting for.

[JudgeFurious]

Real "iPod Killer" you got there Mr. Ballmer. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before the sales start to take off.

  Seriously though I just don't understand how something can come to a market like this with a major selling point like this crippled the way it is. This is a perfect example of the difference between Apple's approach to the iPod and the way pretty much everybody else has gone at it. If the recording labels had tried to limit a similar feature in the iPod this way it would have likely been a deal breaker or the feature itself would have been dropped.

Re:That's the "feature" we were all waiting for.

[bblboy54]

Seriously though I just don't understand how something can come to a market like this with a major selling point like this crippled the way it is.

See Also: Windows

One more reason to use AllofMP3.com

[popo]

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.

Re:One more reason to use AllofMP3.com

[idonthack]

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?

Re:One more reason to use AllofMP3.com

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I really don't think AoM is even close to a middle ground because music production costs money. I really don't think the AoM prices even begin to cover those expenses. You vastly overestimate the cost of replication, shipping and retail overhead. There's a lot more to the cost of making those bits than AoM's pricing structure can possibly sustain.

If you don't like the RIAA, that's fine, but the solution is to support indie music, not ripping off RIAA music through AoM or Limewire because that's still reinforcing the RIAA claim that RIAA music has value. Buying indie music from the indies ensures that more of your money goes to the people that actually make the music.

Re:One more reason to use AllofMP3.com

[Petrushka]

Can I ask some advice? I've been itching to get back to using Allofmp3 again, but can't work out how to fill my balance.

• The Allofmp3 website doesn't give any hints that you can't actually use Visa or Mastercard. I presume this is to avoid admitting fault; but for an end-customer it's pretty irritating. Nothing's changed there, has it?
• Xrost seems to be a recommended choice. But paying for an Xrost icard is a problem in itself! There are three payment options for Xrost:
  • Ukash and Paysafecard are Europe-only;
  • Clickandbuy (apart from having a very dodgy privacy policy) doesn't seem to want to allow service to my country either -- at least, my country isn't one of the options available for opening an account.
• allTunes sounds like it's owned by the same people as Allofmp3, so I presume credit cards aren't an option there either -- ?

So what's the story? If Allofmp3 won't give good advice to its customers, that doesn't exactly endear them to me. Maybe you, or someone, can offer a suggestion.

Re:One more reason to use AllofMP3.com

[heinousjay]

The problem isn't piracy. The problem ultimately is greed.

On both sides. Lets be honest here, you're fighting for cheap entertainment. That's hardly a worthy rallying cry for anyone who isn't subject to a greedy desire to hoard lots of music without paying for it.

Re:One more reason to use AllofMP3.com

[tgrimley]

I'd imagine it has more to do with feeling guilty about downloading.. so by going through the motions of paying, he feels better about it.

Re:One more reason to use AllofMP3.com

[IonOtter]

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!

Re:One more reason to use AllofMP3.com

[aaronl]

You aren't paying for the music as much as the convenience of format and access. You can get Ogg Vorbis, MP3, or FLAC files, in whatever bitrates that you want. You pay by how much data you transfer. You can do searches, and you definitely get what you want. It is a whole lot like iTunes, but much cheaper, and without the DRM.

With P2P, you tend to get 128kbps MP3 files... sometimes you might get 160kbps or 192kbps, and often they are CBR instead of ABR or VBR. Not the best way in the world.

Also, the artists *could* receive money, but the RIAA and associated member companies refuse to collect their royalties from the applicable Russian copyright organization that has been collecting them.

Re:One more reason to use AllofMP3.com

[Teresita]

"Also, the artists *could* receive money, but the RIAA and associated member companies refuse to collect their royalties from the applicable Russian copyright organization that has been collecting them."

Maybe because the Russian "collections" agents have bigger baseball bats.

Re:One more reason to use AllofMP3.com

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Downloading from allofmp3 is about as "moral" as just straight downloading. What's the point in paying for it?

I haven't bought anything from allofmp3, but have read answers to questions such as yours the million or so times they've been posted to slashdot.

Basically, people buy from allofmp3 for three reasons.

1) Convenience. Easy to find songs.
2) Consistent tags (no foo fighter songs with "Christian Rap" as their genre [or spelt as foo fighters, Foo Fighters, Fo Fighters, Foo Fighter])
3) Reliable song download times. All http, songs will take the same amount of time to download instead of ranging from minutes (for very popular songs) to weeks (for obscure, only shared by one guy in peru on dial-up songs).

Many people don't care about moral issues, but find the above factors worth paying a few cents per song.

Frankly, all of the above should be exceedingly obvious to anyone who's ever downloaded music from p2p.

Re:One more reason to use AllofMP3.com

[SsShane]

You miss the point of his post. Who really cares about artists? When it comes to entertainment and consumer stuff, I think about ME. It's all about convenience, not legalities and morals. P2p lacks consistency and reliability. I don't buy from allofmp3 (not a big music guy), but I can understand the allure.

Re:One more reason to use AllofMP3.com

[Cyberax]

For 100th time...

AoMP3 PAYS about 20% of song's price to artist. That's MORE than artists get from ITMS.

Re:One more reason to use AllofMP3.com

[shaitand]

Somehow I doubt that. The RIAA just beat the shit out of the WTO AND Russia.

Re:One more reason to use AllofMP3.com

[loraksus]

The Russian mafia lies in ruins, crushed under the boots of the RIAA.
LOL.

Re:One more reason to use AllofMP3.com

[CODiNE]

Downloading from allofmp3 is about as "moral" as just straight downloading. What's the point in paying for it?

Plausible deniability my friend.

Re:One more reason to use AllofMP3.com

[SethJohnson]

2. Kinda-sorta secure connection: nobody else snooping on your IP address.

And you're giving your credit card number to a guy in what country? And you're giving your credit card number to:

1. Someone who you have every reason to trust?
2. Someone who you already know is breaking international laws?

Seth

Re:One more reason to use AllofMP3.com

[karmatic]

Well, I don't know about the parent, but I'm using a revocable virtual debit card, through XRost (a prepaid online payment card), then on to AllOfMP3. In fact, you can't provide a credit card directly to AllOfMP3 anymore (blame Visa for that).

A slight hassle? Of course. A risk? Hardly.

Re:One more reason to use AllofMP3.com

[gni54321]

The reason a person would download from allofmp3.com is that to sue you the RIAA would first need a search warrant. Communication between me and a 3rd party is protected by the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. When I download an album from bittorrent I am sharing with the whole world so the RIAA can nab me without a warrent. The difference isn't because allofmp3.com is moral, there is just no chance of getting caught.

Re:One more reason to use AllofMP3.com

[Dunbal]

Lets be honest here, you're fighting for cheap entertainment.

      That's his perrogative, since he is on the demand side of the curve. Someone is obviously willing to supply what he wants at that price. The competitors who don't move to adapt, in theory, should be forced out of the market. Entertainment is not a necessity, it's not in a limited supply, and nowadays even the distribution is a piece of cake - the only reason the price is where it's at is because of a price that has been kept artificially high. Recently the "industry" wants to maintain that racket by changing the law and criminalizing people for what they've been doing ever since devices existed to record music. Anything rather than accept that what they are offering just isn't worth what people want to pay anymore. But if allofmp3 can make money, so can the traditional publishers.

Re:One more reason to use AllofMP3.com

[Dunbal]

You vastly overestimate the cost of replication, shipping and retail overhead.

      Hello? If it's not working then change your distribution method. AoM is obviously making money. Why can't the *AA's? No one is obligated to keep those retail stores alive just so that lazy teenagers with acne can have beer money. No - the *AA's want to make BILLIONS, not millions. Fine. One problem - no one wants to pay for it anymore, especially now that we've seen how easy it can be to get quality music. click, click, click, wait 2 minutes. Done.

Re:One more reason to use AllofMP3.com

[b.burl]

Are you an expert in Russian law and culture? Didn't think so. Allof DOES pay artists, its just different then the way the us does it. You might not like the system, but don't push those lies that allofmp3 are just thievies, you know there is legitimate businesses in Russia.

Oh Noes!!!

[ruiner13]

I can only imagine how upset the zune owners will be once they find this out. Heck, both of them might even return the zunes!

Duh.

[Anthony Boyd]

In a non-scientific sampling of popular artists by Zunerama and Zune Thoughts, it looks like it's roughly 40-50 percent of artist 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.

Well of course there is no warning that a song might be unsharable! If they warned you, you might not buy it.

Easier solution to sharing

[DanTheManMS]

Much easier solution to sharing songs: just get a portable headphone amplifier/splitter ($20 at Radio Shack) and have your friend plug his/her headphones into your player. Heck, if you're really that crazy about sharing your music with random people, carry around some of those crappy airline earbuds they give you for free. Then the other person doesn't even need a music player to begin with.

Re:Microsoft won't even follow it's own legalese a

[erostratus]

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?

And Universal gets paid for each Zune sold, why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok... you may or may not remember the following item from billboard magazine a few weeks ago:

http://billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.js p?vnu_content_id=1003380831

"Yesterday, Microsoft agreed to share revenue from Zune sales with record labels and artists. Forcing the issue was Universal Music Group, which at deadline is the only label named in the program. UMG refused to license its music to the Zune unless it could receive a percentage of each device sold, in addition to standard music licensing fees for downloads and subscriptions.

"These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it," UMG chairman/CEO Doug Morris says. "So it's time to get paid for it."

When I saw the headlines on Engadget I thought for sure Universal wouldnt be one of the labels, after all Microsoft chose to pay them off causing good ol' Doug to say he's entitled to a chunk of iPod sales as well. This begs the question: what was the point of the payoff? What did it get them?

Re:Apple bends the RIAA over, the RIAA bends MS ov

[ePhil_One]

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.

Universal is trying to psyche itself up to standing up to Steve Jobs and iTunes by demanding a cut of every iPod, I suspect this was part of the reason MS rolled over for Universal in the first place, 1% of every iPod is a fortune, 1% of every Zune is a pitance. When ever pressed, they stop short of saying they will pull their music from iTunes, I think they are well aware of the bottom line impact NOT being on iTunes would have, the ready to buy iPod owner will happily plunk down $.99 for a non-Universal artist that IS available, then blame the Artist for shunning them; killer recipie for popularity.

Compare that to the risk of not being available to Zune owners, or rather potential Zune owners who check store selection before buying a player. MS didn't do this out of the kindness of their hearts, the did it out of a desperate need to be competitive, the fact that it might hurt the other guy more than it hurt them is a footnote.

Wow that is... quite sublime

[JoeCommodore]

Pretty much had my jaw drop on that one - in light of MS stating the Zune with its wireless sharing features will 'kill' the iPhone and iPod and such you would have thought the Music Industry would play all nicey-nicey till the Zune had some market share then start doing thier stuff.

Re:Wow that is... quite sublime

[Keeper]

It works the other way around. Once the Zune has market share the media companies lose their negotiating leverage. They learned their lesson with Apple...

Take the statistic with a grain of salt.

[twitter]

Yeah, both of 'em.

The chances of them meeting are far lower than the 40-50% chance of their "squirt" failing. Yet another unverifiable, speculative statistic.

This time for sure, Charlie

[straponego]

Come on, loyal Microsoft customers, what are the odds that she'd pull the ball away just before you try to kick it again? You're due!

/me waits for the inevitable "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAUGGGH!!"

aaahh hahahaha!

[Aqua OS X]

So so so wait... Microsoft gives Universal a chunk of change every time a Zune is sold, THEN Universal prevents certain songs from utilizing the only significant gimmick the Zune has?

Not that "squirting" was actually simple to begin with, nevertheless, this is how Universal repays Microsoft? F*cking classic.

Hopefully the nanotech battery angels will come down, make WiFI PMPs practical, and allow sharing that is at least similar to iTunes library sharing. And hopefully by then Universal will have pulled its head out of its ass.

Re:aaahh hahahaha!

[ewieling]

So so so wait... Microsoft gives Universal a chunk of change every time a Zune is sold, THEN Universal prevents certain songs from utilizing the only significant gimmick the Zune has?

It's nice to see Microsoft get screwed for once, rather than Microsoft screwing someone else.

Re:aaahh hahahaha!

[dangitman]

It's nice to see Microsoft get screwed for once, rather than Microsoft screwing someone else.

All this screwing, but I still can't get any :(

Re:aaahh hahahaha!

[Em Adespoton]

It might not have the best hardbutton interface for playing music, but my Palm T|X can play digital audio and widescreen digital video right now... and it takes industry standard SD cards (currently up to 8GB), and can share any data on them via card swap, WiFi, Bluetooth Filesharing, and even IrDA.

Now that Apple has gone after the high end Treo market, maybe it's time for Palm to return the volley with a PMP as small and easy to use as an iPod. The Palm players already support PlaysForSure audio, plus everything else but Apple's DRM.

Come to think of it, the T}X does everything (and more) than the Zune advertised, and its only downside in comparison is the amount of built-in memory it has.

Re:aaahh hahahaha!

[VoltageX]

Help us at rockbox.org get the 2nd USB port on the iRiver H3xx players going, port the rt drivers across, plug in an rt based USB wifi stick and away you go.

Hrm. No wonder ZuneSpam isn't out yet...

[tlhIngan]

Since the Zune has WiFi, I'd assume someone would've tried to reverse-engineer the protocol so they can send any music file to any zune (and photos, etc). In other words, a perfect way to fill someone's zune with spam, or basically DoS their Zune by having the screen constantly filled with "xxxx wants to send you a file, accept?".

I guess with so few Zunes sold, well, the effort isn't worth the rewards. Though, captive audiences...

Re:Microsoft won't even follow it's own legalese a

[slashbob22]

All music you purchase or acquire on a subscription basis from the Zune Marketplace is subject to this agreement and any other applicable terms and conditions, including limitations imposed by the use of digital rights management (DRM) technology I think GP is referring to the fact that the music is subject to "any other applicable terms and conditions". It's not that MS is violating anything, they just pass the buck onto the music Industry to make up rules - hence the new "squirt" rule.

The funniest part

[quantaman]

The Zune has only been out for something like a month and people have just noticed this out now??

Just how unpopular is it?!?

Hold nail on coffin, beat with hammer

[thirty2bit]

I was actually hoping Zune would be a viable competitor to the iPod, being so sick of the latter having saturated our culture (the vehicle with the integrated iPod dock was the straw). But Microsoft's DRM, the restricted media sharing, no Mac support... just crippled it horribly out of the gate. And now bowing/catering to the Monster Records when they should Stand Tall... is just pitiful.

I actually pity Microsoft in a small way, and recalling their other boners (such as BOB), I can't wait to see what they come up with to try and save face.

Stick a fork in it.

[jcr]

Zune is done.

-jcr

Re:Stick a fork in it.

[Teresita]

The Zune display at Circuit City is just as big as the Divx display was back in about 1996, same hopeful looks in the salesperson's eyes as you float by.

New Ads

[Basehart]

"Beam 50% Of Your Beats"

Re:New Ads

[Mister Transistor]

How about a public service announcement:

Warning - Only 50% of your beats may result in squirting?

Microsoft is a bunch of moron

[spitzak]

Basically, why did they even add the option to their DRM to prevent "squirting"? Did the seriously think that the paranoid recording companies would *not* use that option if it was there? If they had the slightest brains at all, they would have realized that they had in fact disabled one of the few features of the Zune. And they certainly should have known they had the power to refuse to implement such an option. Most of the DRM is there to lock people into using the Zune and thus satisfies Microsoft's own personal interests, but this option makes no sense what so ever!

No matter whether you think Microsoft is Satan's spawn or the greatest company in the world, it is obvious this decision is completely against their desires. This is proof positive that they are a bunch of idiots. This is scary yet relieving at the same time...

Re:And Universal gets paid for each Zune sold, why

[gearfab]

"These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it," UMG chairman/CEO Doug Morris says.

So I ripped my copy of The Eagles Greatest Hits to my iPod [I've personally purchased the LP, 8-Track, cassette and CD of that silly little record over the course of 20 years], and that makes me a thief?! Let me personally welcome the extinction of the music industry and mouth breathers like Doug Morris. They will not be missed. And "artists" can only gain from it.

What they mean is

[geekoid]

with the Zune's bulk, you could easily use it to smash an iPhone or iPod.

The greed of these people always astounds me

[Zorque]

I know I should expect it. The people that own the companies do so only because they've invested the most in the company, they don't really care about the music. But still, it's pretty ridiculous that these people -most of whom will never be able to spend all of their money before they die- are so wholeheartedly willing to ruin it for everyone and everything just to get every penny they can get. Scum, all of them.

Re:And Universal gets paid for each Zune sold, why

[mrchaotica]

...causing good ol' Doug to say he's entitled to a chunk of iPod sales as well. This begs the question: what was the point of the payoff? What did it get them?

You answered your own question! Precedent for forcing the same kind of "deal" on Apple is the payoff. Microsoft doesn't give a shit about the Zune; that's why it isn't a "PlaysForSure" device (and probably why it looks like a piece of shit too). It's greatest value to Microsoft is as a sabot -- a shoe to throw into Apple's works.

I'm not the OP, but...

[moosehooey]

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)...

Re:I'm not the OP, but...

[LearnToSpell]

You mean like Usenet?

Re:I'm not the OP, but...

[vorpal22]

I'd wager that, without proper introduction and instruction, Usenet is probably beyond the capacity of most non-tech folk, who probably would have a great deal of difficulty figuring out how to use it on their own and likely don't even know what it is.

Frankly, I find digging through Usenet to be an unpleasant task, and I'd rather simply pay someone a few pennies for quality ripped tracks with properly populated tags. Yes, I am an AllOfMp3 user, although not frequently, because much of the music I like is not offered on there.

Re:I'm not the OP, but...

[loraksus]

If your usenet experience sucks, you need a better client (no, not that piece of shit called agent). There are a few good ones that are designed for binaries nowadays. Some even have integrated search which you have to pay a tiny fee for, but lets you download whatever without downloading 6 gigs of headers.

Re:And Universal gets paid for each Zune sold, why

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I just don't see Apple giving royalties on music except for sales of actual tracks. This entitlement business based on presumed guilt is a bit much, the labels don't directly see money for CD player sales, or CD writers for that matter, so there's little precedence for them to get royalties on other types of players. I don't think any of the RIAA can afford to drop iTunes, it is a top five seller for them and the margins are better for them. I don't doubt that a great many PMPs are being used to carry infringing copies of music, but that's no justification.

I'd think that Universal would embrace the Zune platform better than that, because they think they are being held hostage by Apple's dominance in the paid download market, having an alternative sales platform would give them leverage against Apple. The thought that they are dropping a fantastic viral promotional tool such as the "sharing" is just beyond baffling. We know the RIAA game is about control, but this is ludicrous to the level of "1) load gun. 2) shoot foot.".

I guess the real way forward is indie music and new, more enlightened labels.

Re:Remember boys and girls

[OECD]

You just got zuned!

I smell a meme...

Re:And Universal gets paid for each Zune sold, why

[Teresita]

"So I ripped my copy of The Eagles Greatest Hits to my iPod [I've personally purchased the LP, 8-Track, cassette and CD of that silly little record over the course of 20 years..."

Great little slab of tunes. I can neither confirm, nor deny, that I picked the whole thing up from alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.classic-rock using the Pan newsreader in about four minutes. Oh, if the labels only knew about that Venue-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named which is older than the web.

Re:Too Cheap

[Technician]

Two years from now that Goodwill thrift store a hop and skip away from Microsoft where I get all my software is gonna have more $4.99 Zunes than they had Jar Jar Binks action figures in 1999. They'll stick 'em over by the 8-tracks.

They won't go that cheap. They still play MP3's so they are still useful for the old Kaza and Napster music.

Kids will like them. There is still no restrictions (even 3 day 3 play) on video squirting. It'll be the rage for schoolyard porn sharing and worth more than $4.99 just for that. Does anybody know if the video is picture only or can sharing of music video's run unchecked?

Re:Remember boys and girls

[Teresita]

"...(You just got zuned!)

I smell a meme..."

Zune (v). To demote with extreme prejudice. Astronomers zuned Pluto in a conference yesterday. See also, "Plutoed"

))<drm>((

[Anonymous Coward]

back and forth

Re:One more reason to use AllofDownloading MP3.com

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Downloading from allofmp3 is about as "moral" as just straight downloading. What's the point in paying for it?

1. Convenience
2. Quality Assurance

You know, the stuff that the "legit" music distributors are supposed to provide.

Re:Microsoft won't even follow it's own legalese a

[mikek3332002]

Microsoft could say anything they liked in those agrements. Who going to fork the money over to sue them. The US and EU combined couldn't get Microsoft to do what they want(though that was the courts picking on MS for serving the consumer).

Grave

[tsa]

Talk about digging your own grave. Way to go MS et al.

iPhone implied feature

[Runnin_Rob]

Reading this made me realize an implied feature of the iPhone - with an 802.11 connection and running OSX, this could essentially run iTunes. Well, when I open iTunes on my laptop on campus I see a dozen or so shared music lists on the network. If you want to share your music with the cute girl in the coffee shop it would be easy as pie with an iPhone - as long as you're on the same network. This scheme would work better than the Zune's squirt anyway. You can stream the music from someone else's machine as long as they are in range for as many times as you would like, and when you're no longer on the same network it goes away (iTunes doesn't allow you to copy the music over). Plus you get the added benefit of searching the other person's music list and you can share passively. The iPhone just might be a lot more social.

Re:iPhone implied feature

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to share your music with the cute girl in the coffee shop it would be easy as pie...

YOU think it is the cute girl in the coffee shop but is is actualy the fat gay guy, with pink tutu, next to you!
 

Re:iPhone implied feature

[Traaj]

Well, when I open iTunes on my laptop on campus I see a dozen or so shared music lists on the network. If you want to share your music with the cute girl in the coffee shop it would be easy as pie with an iPhone - as long as you're on the same network. Good point, but remember, iTunes will not stream ANY song purchased from iTMS unless the receiver is one of the four other computers authorized to play it.

Re:iPhone implied feature

[fa2k]

What makes you think that the music labels would allow this feature any more than the Zune squirting? Additionally you portray it to be more permissive than the Zune version. So: is it more restricted, or will it be blocked by the RIAA?

Re:iPhone implied feature

[runlevel 5]

Actually, music purchased from the iTunes store is locked down about equally as bad as these files in the Zune. iTunes will ask your for the authorization password if you try to play someone's DRM'd music over the nextwork. No password, no music for you. Only non-DRM music (stuff ripped yourself or have otherwise "acquired") can be shared.

I'm pretty sure the Zune would let your share non-DRM'd mp3s as well.

Re:iPhone implied feature

[jythie]

Unless they changed thier mind, The 3 play/3 day limit is for all shared music, including mp3s you ripped yourself.

Re:iPhone implied feature

[mhbtr]

I don't understand why the parent, with incorrect info that says the iTunes DRM is equally as bad as the Zune's gets a 5 and informative, and the response that clarifies that the Zune's 3 days 3 plays is universal gets a 1. Mod the response up!

YouTube interview w/ MS PM

[Anonymous Coward]

Matt Jubelirer (product manager of Zune) interview. See the funny CNN video as well, wherein a shuffle steals the show from the Zune.

How it went down....

[bblboy54]

Microsoft buys friends in the music business for $1 per Zune sold.
Microsoft releases the Zune and listens to the laughs hear round the blogosphere.
MAFIAA realizes that $1 for each of the 8 Zunes sold only equal $8 which does not cover the cost of a single CD and restricts their music from being properly used on Zune
Microsoft learns that buying friends is a bad idea.

MAFIAA calls press conference which contains only one sentence: "So long and thanks for all the fish!"

Re:How it went down....

[Dunbal]

MAFIAA realizes that $1 for each of the 8 Zunes sold only equal $8 which does not cover the cost of a single CD

      Not to mention the $150,000 they demand for each downloaded song, at times. At least if your name is allofmp3.com

Anyone stupid enough to back Zune

[EmbeddedJanitor]

probably is to retarded to be able to say fuck.

The most shocking thing...

[dr.badass]

The most shocking thing is that there are multiple non-Microsoft websites devoted to the Zune. I mean, I kind of expect record companies and Microsoft to fuck over their customers; but people building a Zune news website? That's just perverse.

Is there an iTunes/Sony deal going on?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Given that squirting only allows limited playing, and thus surely is good at promoting sales, you just have to wonder whether there's some strong-arming going on behind the scenes. Just like MS strong-arms computer vendors with Windows, you have to wonder if there is something going on between iTunes store and Sony et al to help bring Zune down (not that Zune needed any help, and will crash and burn anyway).

SMB

[Lehk228]

MS should have made the zune a simple MP3 player with wifi and SMB sharing. that way it could share between windows PC's and not deal with any DRM bullshit. throw in a wireless chat application that worked with a stylus and they could have had a successful product instead of a steaming turd

Of course they do

[Rix]

Almost all mp3 players on the market easily allow you to transfer music files onto and off of them. The only exceptions are the Zune and iPods.

Re:Of course they do

[darien]

I think your brother must have had some clever software installed, because although you can simply drag files onto an iPod, they won't ordinarily be recognised as available songs and won't show up in your music library. You do need to import them with iTunes (or some third-party equivalent).

Re:Of course they do

[git68]

You wanna try one of the Sony USB Walkman things, my daughter got a NW-300EF as a gift, can only load music on it using a complete pile of crap Windows only app called SonicStage, I only have OS X and Ubuntu, luckily I found this:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/nwe00xmp3man/

Re:Of course they do

[that this is not und]

Well, I for one am fine with grouping Microsoft, Apple, and Sony all in a class together as vendors to avoid for freedom's sake.

Or

[Rix]

Don't include any DRM or music service at all, and let your customers decide how to fill the device. Like every other mp3 player on the market.

Re:They illegally tax the fuck out of me !!!!

[dculberson]

Son, your life - and the people in it - scare the ever loving shit out of me.

Re:Apple bends the RIAA over, the RIAA bends MS ov

[timmarhy]

i hope they pull their fucking music from itunes. they only produce crud anyway. it'll be a cold day in hell before jobs gives anyone a cut of the ipod, his ego wouldn't allow it it'd be like sharing the glory.

Sigh, mind-bogglingly stupid... but irrelevant...

[aapold]

I have a Zune. There, i'll admit it. I like it, too. The zune marketplace software can be a tad slow at time but the zune pass is the main reason to have one, if I could have bought it sans the player and used what I had before (and still have) I'd have done that. But okay, fine, they need a new player to expire the content, that's probably its main reason for existing and not being their previously endorsed "playsforsure".

Anyway, as I said the Zune pass is the main reason to have one, it lets you download whatever you want from the marketplace.

Now, odds are if you have a zune, you have the pass. Maybe not, but likely so.

So. If you meet another zune owner (and I'll admit this has never happened to me, and I live in one of the ten largest metro areas in the US), and you both have zune pass --- meaning whatever the song is, you could go home and download it and keep it on there for as long as you were a member (forget the 3 days 3 plays) --- you still can't zip it over there. Ridiculous. I guess you might as well just tell them the name of the song or artist.

The wifi feature of the device is pretty much a non-feature. The zune pass is really the only feature at this time. Something apple could easily implement, and hey, I hope they do at some point. But they'd probably have to pay through the nose after microsoft's deal for that. but that's neither here nor there.

Given the pass, the player is still worth it for me. They may update its firmware someday and add other stuff, but as I said, I mainly have this for the pass.

I actually keep the wifi turned on (sacrificing some battery) because on the zune boards I frequent (Zunerama) they kind of encourage everyone to do that in hopes paths might cross (on the boards this has resulted in exactly one reported encounter of people that didn't buy them together)...

Someone even went and made a way to chat with Zunes over wifi. How? Well, it lets you share photos. So he created a set of pictures with every letter of the alphabet, plus common phrases and emoticons. So you share photos in a certain order and your recipient can view the pictures to put together the message. A staggering amount of effort...

Anyway. Given that its Sony, and Sony and Microsoft are currently enemies on the gaming front, dunno if its somehow related. Sony doesn't allow sharing of music on PSPs, does it? I have a sony ericsson walkman phone which doesn't seem to have much in the way of DRM enforcement on it. It is supposed to have some kind of associated store from Cingular, but never got around to using it.

The Social...

[nixkuroi]

Welcome to the Social...Some of our chaperons have decided that they don't want you to dance with certain of their daughters so they're going to stand in the shadows and hit you with a stick when you pick the wrong one. For extra fun and suspense, we're not going to tell you which girls provoke the stick. God luck and enjoy the social, but not too much.

I think you're wrong

[Rix]

Allofmp3 isn't substantially less expensive than eMusic. If eMusic can pay their bills, certainly the RIAA could emulate their model.

It frustrates the sharing process

[The Amazing Fish Boy]

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.

On most peoples' Zunes, Sony and Universal music probably makes up a fair percentage of the total number of songs. Since these are "unsharable", the software appears to be "broken." To the average person the ins and outs of these deals are unimportant. They want to share their songs (as they were told they could), but they can't. The software appears "broken."

Picture two people with Zunes (suspension of disbelief required):

A: Hey man, you should check out this rad song I got. It's called In Da Club!
B: Oh man I have never heard that before! Squirt it on me, big boy!
A: Alright... here goes! Did you get it? Oh... oh wait, it says I can't squirt it to you. Uhh... sorry about that.
B: Yeah, I guess I'll download it off BitTorrent when I get home. See you later, man.

Such a situation is awkward and somewhat embarassing. In the future these people would likely avoid using the sharing feature. So people are discouraged from using the sharing feature, indie music or otherwise, and the record industry continues to control the distribution of music.

another zune owner?

[sentientbrendan]

there's more than one?

Careful...

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

"It would be like the Beatles who simply refuse to permit distribution in any format except physical albums in either LP or Compact Cassette."
I have seen and heard Beatles Compact Discs. (And I have heard of Beatles quasi-CDs.)
I have seen and heard Beatles music on DVD. I believe that's another format.
There are now hot rumors that Apple Records will finally release Beatles music in digital form.
http://news.com.com/2061-10793_3-6150862.html?part =rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&subject=news
http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/01/applebeatles_d e.html
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/200 7/01/15/daily57.html
The digital Beatles tracks will be sold at the iTunes Store. That will hurt Microsoft further.

Re:Apple bends the RIAA over, the RIAA bends MS ov

[BearRanger]

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.

hillarious

[mgabrys_sf]

And this is after Microsoft rolled over and started revenue sharing with the recording industry sales on the hardware end? Boy - lot of good that did them.

Re:))((

[Anonymous Coward]

you and me and everyone we know... will not get this joke.

Microsoft hid the limitation, apparently.

[Futurepower(R)]

The parent comment: "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."

It is Microsoft's responsibility to disclose any limiting features of their products that would cause customers to make a different decision about buying. Presumably most people who bought Zunes would not have bought them if they understood the limits.

--
Violence caused more violence in Iraq, not peaceful democracy.

Zune we hardly knew ye

[kindbud]

Game Over. Good Bye.

Wait wait....

[Shaltenn]

I remember the story that came up wherein we learn that Microsoft shills out a percentage of each Zune sale to the recording labels and RIAA or whatever...

Wasn't the purpose of those fees to ALLOW these sorts of transfers? Are the groups backing out now?

This is downright stupid. I feel really bad for anyone who bought the damned thing now.

bluetooth

[NickeZ]

They should go with bluetooth. I mean I can transfer how many songs I want from my k800i to any bloody bluetooth device I want. And bluetooth is available in far more devices than WLAN.

Re:bluetooth

[Steve001]

Besides Bluetooth, another possibility that is already in use with Palm handhelds is transfer via infrared. The only problem I could see is if the data transfer limits make this impractical.

Ooops

[nurb432]

From what i read, 'squirting' was pretty worthless anyway.

Now you get duped on top of it.

Just great.

[Sax Maniac]

denying Zune owners the ability to 'squirt' songs

Blue-balls from Zune and chicks. What's a geek to do?

Think of the children ...

[jc42]

One thing that people are missing is how this undermines our school system. From the earliest age, teachers have universally emphasized the lesson "Share your toys with the others". Teachers understand that immature children are naturally selfish, and want everything for themselves but don't want to share with their friends (much less those awful kids that I don't like). But teachers have learned how to put a strong emphasis on sharing, to civilize the little beasts before they have to go out into the greater society.

But here we have a big, respected corporation selling a toy that does the opposite. What sort of message does this send the young minds? It says that the big, successful people encourage hoarding and not sharing. Is this really what we want our children to learn?

Sensible teachers would ban such anti-social toys from their schools. They would look for comparable toys that make it easy for the children to share the fun. And in this case, the electronic toy would be better than older "hardware" toys, because the child would learn that they can share something without losing it for themselves. In this case, sharing is done by copying, so you can share something fun as many times as you like and still have full use of it yourself. This is a valuable lesson for growing minds.

But apparently not if your toy comes from Microsoft.

Maybe we need to send their managers back to first grade.

Re:Think of the children ...

[jc42]

Well, one of the lessone that little Joey learns when he shares a tune with Billy is that some things can be shared without loss. Even if Billy trashes the tune, or mixes it with a bund of others and adds his own rant over the top, Joey still has his copy to listen to (or trash in his own way).

You can't do this with real-world toys, of course; if Joey lends a toy to Billy and Billy breaks it, Joey has lost a toy and it's Billy's fault. But with shared "IP", the giver loses nothing. This teaches both Joey and Billy that there are some things that adults insist as treating as equivalent that are actually very, very different. It's a good lesson in some of the stupid things that adults do. Maybe when they grow up, they'll understand a little better than the adults do now.

(And I'd like to thank Eric Raymond for the comparison with children sharing their toys. He may not have originated the metaphor, but he's the one I first heard it from. It's a fun way to frame the "IP" debate. It puts those silly adults in their places. ;-)

Re:It's Microsoft, not Sony

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Squirtus interruptus

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, my!

Funny But

[Mateo_LeFou]

I'm sorry, but this idea is perfectly keeping with the economics of "content" the way they are presently implemented in this country. That logic is:

-person X derives pleasure from something that owes some share of its existence to person Y
-X owes Y (or Y's grandchildren, if dead) a quantifiable amount of money.

The rest is just arguing about how to do the calculation.

We can accept this state of affairs, and allow every device we operate to constantly be calculating how much we owe and to whom, or we can adopt different logic, along the lines of

-person Y offers to perform some service or to transfer some product to X for a quantifiable amount of money
-X accepts or declines this offer.

You might say that "intellectual property" could be the product in question, but I answer that this is based on a misunderstanding of the word "transfer", i.e. the product is no longer where it used to be.

Not exactly.

[Anonymous Coward]

AoMP3 PAYS about 20% of song's price to artist. There is a lot of doubt regarding the accuracy of AoMP3's claim, as some feel their accounting may not be transparent enough to accurately verify any royalty payments to any artist.

To clarify, AoMP3 claims that it pays the artist a royalty. That statement alone makes it very unclear if royalties are distributed to all artists deserving royalties for a particular piece of music (songwriters, musicians paid via royalty.) Royalty distribution is almost never as simple as "100% of the artist royalty payments go to person X", and rules of distribution vary widely by country.

How does AoMP3 know how the artists with rights to a piece have decided to divide the royalties?

Re:Not exactly.

[topham]

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.

Re:Not exactly.

[Cyberax]

Royalties are given to distribution agency (the same also one collects payments for mobile phone tunes and radio broadcasts). Artists are free to claim money from this non-profit agency.

To quote AoMP3 FAQ:

We pay Russian Licensing Societies 15% for all music. The Russian Licensing Societies will in turn pay the copyright owners, not necessarily the artists. Despite no legal requirement to do so, we are currently considering paying original performing artists 5%, regardless of who owns the copyright to the underlying work.

Can the copyright owners actually collect from Russian Licensing Societies like ROMS.

Yes. Similar to Music Licensing Societies in other countries (like ASCAP and BMI in the US), all a copyright owner needs to do is contact the Russian Licensing Societies (e.g., ROMS) and show proof that they own a copyrighted work; after which they can collect accumulated proceeds.

They're too business-centric not to negotiate

[tentimestwenty]

The problem is that Microsoft is in the business of making money, not products. The products come second. So, they have tons of lawyers who say, "we should negotiate with other companies to get the right feature set to avoid litigation and increase interoperability". The problem with this is obvious. Lawyers should never determine this stuff. Conversely Apple is a company that makes products which because they're good make money. Sometimes they get into trouble by "innovating" a little too much without talking to the competition.

Most assinine thing...

[shoptroll]

Wow. That's incredibly pathetic. Is "Three plays or three days" not good enough for them?

The day the label companies start actually doing good for their customers and artists is the day hell freezes over.

Why don't we publish the restrictions?

[Spicerun]

An idea: Why not have a website that lists exactly which songs zune won't let be shareable, and make certain that the artist, who doesn't let their work be shareable (according to the story), gets a good bunch of publicity on it?

I, for one, would make certain to not buy anything from 'non-shareable' artists. If enough people did that, the artists might rethink their stance. (Yes, I know that the artist may not even know what their company is doing with their product, but maybe its time for them to make a stand instead of accepting whatever their recording company dish out.)

Re:It's Microsoft, not Sony

[ravenshrike]

Except, the iPhone is technically a computer with phone and audio playback capabilities, and is not being marketed primarily as an MP3 player. I'm pretty sure that makes a difference when it comes to lawsuits, as there haven't been lawsuits over iTunes streaming capabilities.

It's all about the Content!

[BillGatesLoveChild]

If Ted Turner bought MGM just for it's library of old films, well, why do Apple and MS let themselves be randsomed by record company executives?

Why not launch their own record labels?

"Whoa man" you say "They're software companies." Look at SONY. They're into everything; electronics, PC, movies, spyware *and* records. Why can't Apple or MS do this too?

Yes, we might like to use the word "Arist", but it's a consumer industry just like any other. They can hire all the usual record industry types for the spotting/sleazing/recording/promoting. There is no shortage of "Artists" out there either: The plethora (yes, a plethora) of Idol shows show you can take pretty much anybody and make them a star. I'm sure there are many eager bands out there who would jump at the chance to sign. Apple are perceived as "cool", so they could get away with this (but can't call it Apple Records; maybe iRecords?). Microsoft *thinks* they're cool, and hey they're loaded, so they can do it too.

The whole DRM thing shows the copyright laws are badly broken, and no amount of lobbying is going to save the record companies. They've fumbled the ball, and keep missing the point. Look at the chance they had with Napster, and they let it slip through their greedly little fingers. They've fumbled again, so this is a good chance for Apple (or MS) to take the lead. I reckon with their sort of money, they could drive the big four out of existance.

Hmm... I think I just did some free Business Development work for Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Oh well. Enjoy anyway!

Re:It's Microsoft, not Sony

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody cares what it technically is or isn't, or what it is or isn't being marketed as. The only thing the record labels care about is what it does. If it's a mobile device that can transfer music wirelessly it'll probably be subject to the same restrictions as the Zune, and then some if Cingular see any (more) money to be made out of it.

There's no reason why the big 5 should have one set of rules for Apple and one for MS. The success of iTunes has nothing to do with it - Microsoft are clearly in this for the long term and only a fucking idiot would think otherwise - yet they're still getting screwed six ways from sunday. Why should Apple be treated any differently?

If you have to hack, are there not better options?

[SuperKendall]

if there is a hacked firmware upgrade that disables all the nastiness, would you buy it?

If you want to buy something you have to hack anyway - aren't there then a lot of other, better, devices to look at rather than a Zune? Like for instance the PSP which has a much higher resolution screen, or other devices that have keyboards. Realistically how useful is even a hacked Zune, when you can get other devices with even better raw features for around the same price?

Yes really

[SuperKendall]

There are cases where they could distribute songs without any DRM according to the wishes of the artists, but they choose to use FairPlay anyway

The original poster said "this is where Apple gets it right, treating all songs equally". You are in fact AGREEING with what the parent post said, so your subject line is all wrong. Wrapping all songs sold from ITMS is a GOOD THING for users (in terms of usability) because then they know exactly what limitations to expect from any ITMS song. If you as a consumer do not like those limitations, you can buy CD's to rip or MP3's from other sources (such as band stores that "get it" and sell MP3's, like the Barenaked Ladies) - but that doesn't mean treating all songs sold from ITMS exactly the same is not a good idea for a usability standpoint for people that choose to use that store, and has not been a point of success for Apple with consumers and helped them become more popular, regardless of what the average Slashdot reader feels about Apple's DRM.

This means Sony and Universal hate their music!

[sprior]

I'm no fan of Zune, but what this tells me is that Sony and Universal think their music sucks so bad that after you've heard it no more than 3 times in 3 days you'll have heard it enough and won't want to purchase it. Doesn't that say a lot about what they think of the quality of their product?

Plausible deniability?

[SuperKendall]

Plausible deniability my friend.

One mans "Plausible deniability" is another mans Exhibit A.

Microsoft's media parners are just getting started

[AmazingRuss]

I would imagine that per-play royalties are what the endgame is. Play a song, look at the album art, or even look at the song name, and cha-ching, your zune docks your credit card.

Never, ever, will these people get another dime from me...and I'll be doing my best to make sure they don't get a dime from anybody else. That's the only way we'll ever be rid of them.

Re:And Universal gets paid for each Zune sold, why

[Dunbal]

This entitlement business based on presumed guilt is a bit much

      This is what happens when you give money to people who whine. It only encourages more whining. The reason they are trying to get their sticky fingers in every pie is because they think they CAN. There was nothing they could do about cassette tapes and video tapes - since these were analog. But now that things are digital they think they can outsmart everyone and lock their stuff down. They will only be happy when they have music that expires after x number of plays, unless you fork up more cash.

      I can't wait for the day for someone to actually call them on their supposed "losses", and oblige them to prove it. After all, there must be some penalty for lying to the court, lying to the government, and lying to the people. Oh, hang on, looking at GWB, maybe not...

Why is this so surprising?

[4iedBandit]

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)

Re:Sigh, mind-bogglingly stupid... but irrelevant.

[theurge14]

"Someone even went and made a way to chat with Zunes over wifi. How? Well, it lets you share photos. So he created a set of pictures with every letter of the alphabet, plus common phrases and emoticons. So you share photos in a certain order and your recipient can view the pictures to put together the message. A staggering amount of effort... "

This made me shudder. Oh, the technology...

Re:))((

[ballwall]

It's a reference to the movie "You and Me and Everyone We Know". A bit of a wierd indi flick, there's a very out there IM conversation involving "back and forth". It would be really hard to explain without seeing the movie.

Reasonable question

[ElephanTS]

Reasonable question. I think the answer has to be marketeers half understanding the tech market. They probably looked at /. one day and saw the iPod being critiqued for not having wireless capabilities and thought "We know how to beat this iPod thing, we'll add WiFi". They then tell this to someone higher up who says "Let's go for it, great idea" and then the box is developed. Then at the final meeting when all the different sections of the 'team' get together it slowly dawns on them they haven't thought about permissions from third parties. But, of course, they are stuck as there's already been hype and press releases so they have to stay on schedule (especially given MSFTs reputation for 'slippage') and the Zune gets released. So embarrassed are they about the failings of their USP (unique selling point) they decide to keep it quiet and hope for the best. Someone pipes up that isn't such a good idea and is quickly silenced. And here they are now.

squirting in sci-fi

[hany]

Peter F. Hamilton uses the term "squirt" in his books too. Meaning something along the lines of "sending copy of some data from one device to another via some short-range optical interface using red light".

Not such a big deal..

[Morky]

...since the 23 Zune owners worldwide are probably having a hard time finding eachother anyway.

Re:It's Microsoft, not Sony

[gsslay]

So if I market an MP3 player that's "technically" a hat I can design it to do whatever I want? After all, who's ever been sued over the functionality of a hat?

The labels needn't be involved

[Rix]

I doubt you could stream iTunes encrypted content normally, so it wouldn't even apply. There's no reason you couldn't stream the unencrypted content that everyone actually uses, though.

Re:))((

[Mozk]

I kinda think he got the joke since he referenced it in his post.

"Zune" is Valley Speak...

[FishinDave]

... for "toast".

Re:If you have to hack, are there not better optio

[countach]

A PSP doesn't have a hard drive which makes it a fairly limited music box. But the Zune appears to be a lot less hacker friendly than the iPod.

What's the error message?

[BillX]

...Probably something like, "Sending this song failed for an unspecified reason. (Error 0x8000001237)"

I don't care two shits for Microsoft, but a semi-"solution" to this BS for their publicity would be to use the error message as an opportunity to out the responsible parties.

"Sorry, UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP has set the No-Squirt Bit for this song. Transfer aborted!"

(There's an obvious joke to be made somewhere about Zunes giving you Squirts, but let's not go there...)

Re:Apple bends the RIAA over, the RIAA bends MS ov

[El Gruga]

Exactly. The future is either more restriction on music or freedom via instant publishing and sales of music on iTunes, and presumably other online venues. Record music. Post on iTunes. Sell songs. Get money. That seems to be the way it will happen - Apple is happy because it gets some cash and massive iPod sales, Artist is happy becuase he/she owns his/her music and gets direct cash. All the ugly record companies simply disappear. Cool.

...and yet, it's the same size

[kapowaz]

Zune has a bigger screen

Important point; it's bigger, but it's the exact same resolution. At the sort of size we're talking about, does a slightly bigger screen of the same resolution make that much of a difference? After all you could simulate the same viewport size by bringing the iPod a few inches closer to your face...

Killing record companies with iTunes Records?

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Trust me, even if the established record companies disappear, it will not be simple. If your plan comes to fruition, expect the established labels--EMI at the least--to offer Zune exclusives before they go.