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

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...

[arekusu]

It's pretty useful as a source of jokes.

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

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.

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?

[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?

[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.

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?

[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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?!?

Re:All Access Squirt Passes

[Wandering Wombat]

Sounds like some sort of Microsoft Condom...

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!
 

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.

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.