Microsoft Patents Process To "Unpirate" Music

Unequivocal writes "A new Wired magazine blog entry shows that Microsoft has patented a technique for preventing and reversing music piracy at the hardware level. 'Microsoft and Apple are thinking along the same lines when it comes to enabling users to copy music between their wireless devices. Certain cellphones already allow you to [transfer music] via Bluetooth file transfer, but Microsoft's patented idea would take the concept further, by allowing users to trade MP3s that may have come from file sharing networks to one another, expiring the song on the recipient's device after three plays, unless the user pays Microsoft a fee in order to continue to listen to the track, with a percentage going to the person who provided the song. As the abstract puts it, "even [the] resale of pirated media content [can] benefit... the copyright holder."'"

Comments

Microsoft says:

[Anonymous Coward]

GIMME MONEY!!!

A giant leap

[cthulu_mt]

The next big step in DRM is a giant boot in the ass. Thanks bill.

Re:A giant leap

[jcenters]

Actually, I think it's pretty clever. It solves the sharing/piracy conundrum that holds features like these back while simultaneously making piracy profitable and even somewhat legitimate.

Of course it will be horribly implemented, and I want nothing to do with it.

But it's a nice idea.

Re:A giant leap

[chgros]

Or a boot... stomping on a face... forever...

Re:A giant leap

[walt-sjc]

I love the patent, for different reasons. It ensures that nobody but Microsoft will put such stupid and irresponsible technology in their media players.

Does anyone else out there wonder WHY MS is doing so much anti-consumer, anti-user technology? We also have the new Colonel kernel service too that is CERTAINLY hostile, along with the other well-known invasive and overly restrictive DRM systems in Windows.

Only device-to-device?

[KingSkippus]

From what I'm reading, it looks like this only applies to device-to-device transfer, a la the Zune's "squirt" feature.

Seriously, in the grand scheme of things, with people downloading tracks from p2p networks and ripping their own CDs, is this going to make an impact whatsoever?

I think not. It sounds like yet another goofy scheme to "enable" (the RIAA's word that roughly translates to "disable" in English) what consumers can do with their players.

Re:Only device-to-device?

[BewireNomali]

i can imagine that the future of music delivery is a perpetually untethered device. one of the interesting things about the iphone is that - AFAIK - you still need to synch/dock in order to load music - you're still tied to the desktop.

the telcos are positioned to sell music - but the devices/phones are not ideal. form factors and battery life are prime issues - along with telco lock-in that prevents getting the best deal/price.

this is one of those things that doesn't seem like an issue now but will be - when devices will not need to be synched in order to acquire and/or expand your music library.

Re:Only device-to-device?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds to me like Microsoft has enabled a way for its customers to pay for the squirt feature none of them wanted (or so the sales show) in the first place. Next Microsoft will add pay-per-use spell checkers to its web browser.

Bluetooth for file transfer? Isn't that slow?

And, finally, wouldn't a system where Microsoft actively entices people to illegally copy music make Microsoft guilty of contributory infringement? Just sayin'...

Re:Only device-to-device?

[mmeister]

>> From what I'm reading, it looks like this only applies to device-to-device transfer, a la the Zune's "squirt" feature.

So, effectively, only about a dozen Zune owners will even run into this thing.

In all seriousness -- we need LESS, NOT MORE DRM.

Re:Only device-to-device?

[totally bogus dude]

Bluetooth for file transfer? Isn't that slow?

Not too slow, especially for compressed music; Bluetooth 2.0 can reach 2Mbit/sec, though most current devices probably wouldn't be able to manage that. You wouldn't want to transfer a movie over it, but even a whole album wouldn't be too bad. Then again, people have been downloading whole movies and multi-CD games via much slower internet links for a long time, so I guess it's fast enough for many people.

Re:Only device-to-device?

[Ravnen]

Seriously, in the grand scheme of things, with people downloading tracks from p2p networks and ripping their own CDs, is this going to make an impact whatsoever?

I don't know about the United States, but in a lot of countries here in Europe, we pay taxes on blank media, which aim to compensate copyright holders for piracy of their works. In other words, there's already a fee something like this involved when ripping CDs, DVDs, etc., but it's managed by the state, through taxation, rather than by private industry.

Never Willingly.

[Ayanami Rei]

I would never willingly purchase a device with such a misfeature. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Way to shoot yourselves in the foot, Microsoft and Apple.

Re:Never Willingly.

[RingDev]

I don't know... I don't think it's that bad of an idea.

I mean, last week I went to a party. A friend of a friend put a comp CD in and it was some good tunes. Standing in the shade of gray area, I could claim fair use and ask him for a copy of his CD. Or, I could go out and buy 9 CDs to get all of the singles/albums, or I could go to iTunes and buy the 9 songs.

None of these options have an immediate option for me to acquire a copy of the must. With the first option, I have to count on a guy who has likely drank too much to remember to burn a CD for me, who he will likely never see again in his life, so he will have to give the CD to a friend of his who might know that he is suposed to give it to me.

The second and third options both require me to either memorize or write down all of the content of the CD... not to likely while drinking...

The second option also requires me to track down all of the CDs either online or at local stores.

The third option requires me to dedicate my bandwidth to downloading lossy copies from iTunes.

In short, those options all suck. He has the music there, if we have similar playing devices, when not let me cherry pick a few songs off his immediately, then 3 days later when I'm syncing ask if I want to buy them? I get the music legally, after a few days free use, the IP holder gets their due, and even my buddy gets a nickle for pimping a few songs out. Everything sounds reasonable to me. Only thing I don't like about the situation is that some RIAA affiliate is likely getting a bigger percent than the original author. So long as it doesn't block the transfer of non-licensed songs, I've got no objection to adding functionality.

-Rick

Re:Never Willingly.

[Anonymous Coward]

So long as it doesn't block the transfer of non-licensed songs, and you are asking that from the company that made Vista. They are gonna err on the side of caution. Also, most likely the tracks on your friend's friend's CD would be unlicensed since they are cherry picked from a whole bunch of CDs.

Re:Never Willingly.

[Floritard]

Then again, if you're as drunk as you imply, maybe that music wasn't all the hot to begin with. I'll dance to anything shitfaced.

Re:Never Willingly.

[ratboy666]

But, such a scheme CANNOT determine if the amount has ALREADY been paid.

If a levy is imposed on flash players (and it is, here), *and* the flash player FURTHER imposes payment... that would be paying twice for material.

Another example. If someone downloads from "iTunes" here, and burns onto CD, they effectively pay for the music TWICE (or possibly THREE times):

1 - the levy paid on flash (possibly Apple players are exempt?)

2 - payment to iTunes

3 - levy paid on CD

Re:Never Willingly.

[Original Replica]

I don't think it's that bad of an idea.

This idea by itself isn't a bad idea. However, when you combine it with the Music Industry wanting Internet Radio to play per listener, it suddenly points towards a very possible and unfriendly future. Pay per Play, on your personal collection. Sure the CDs you already own can't do this, but it's a very small step between: free for the first 3 plays then pay (BG's idea) and pay a small fee every 3 plays in perpetuity. I'm not trying to be all doom and gloom, but with CD sales seriously down, the music giants are getting desperate.

Re:Never Willingly.

[suv4x4]

I would never willingly purchase a device with such a misfeature. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Way to shoot yourselves in the foot, Microsoft and Apple.

Yea, they couldn't afford to lose *YOU* as a customer right.

Don't make the mistake of taking yourself for a perfect example of how most people would react. Right now iPod can't trade wirelessly music at all, and is the most popular player in the world. I'd argue that if the next iPod has crippled sharing ability, compared to this player's completely missing sharing ability, it's still more value to the average customer.

Re:Never Willingly.

[Ucklak]

Just like magazines in the doctors office.

They pay for a subscription, I pay to read it. Next patient/customer pays to read the same copy.

Books shared amongst neighbors or friends also do not continue to pay the revenue stream for the publishers.

I wonder if the publishing crowd would raise their minions of lawyers if PDFs of books were shared among readers just as easily as MP3s.

This DRM is never going to work. It's like the war on drugs and the problem isn't the so called `piracy`, it's the convenience of the format.
If there were an open source DRM format that registers the owner's data within the file, then maybe, but all the players want a cut and they want it to be their format and no one is going to use something that leaves breadcrumbs.

The RIAA realizes that the reaper is sharpening his blade for them. They are not the distribution powerhouse anymore and they have wronged too many artists that do fine without them (e.g., Prince).
The RIAA is of the mindset that if a performer is playing his guitar at a crowded corner in a busy street, everyone who hears his music should drop a coin in his hat.
If I'm entertained, I'd 'buy that for a dollar.' If I'm not, I'd pass on and forget the background noise.

Re:Never Willingly.

[superbus1929]

And let's not forget what happened when Prince said he'd give away his new CD in The Mail on Sunday on July 24!

"It would be an insult to all those record stores who have supported Prince throughout his career. It would be yet another example of the damaging covermount culture which is destroying any perception of value around recorded music. The Artist Formerly Known as Prince should know that with behaviour like this he will soon be the Artist Formerly Available in Record Stores. And I say that to all the other artists who may be tempted to dally with the Mail on Sunday."

They're not even subtle about this anymore. They're openly shaking down their own artists.

Re:Never Willingly.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would never willingly purchase a device with such a misfeature. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Way to shoot yourselves in the foot, Microsoft and Apple.

And Apple? How did Apple get dragged into this? TFS clearly stated that Microsoft's patented idea would take the concept (of sharing data) further. What you call misfeature is not part of Apple's patent. What's Apple's patent then?

One way it would work is similar to the way iTunes currently works, in that your device would find other Apple players on any wireless network and access their music. However, unlike iTunes, the portable devices would be able to send music files to each other (as opposed to streaming them), as well as making requests for music a la P2P services. The patent also indicates that users would be able to request a random selection of music from the other device.

Other aspects of the patent involve devices tagging tracks for later download, or downloading the requested content from a central server rather than from the other device -- pointing to the notion that iPhones and connected will have access to the iTunes store (it's a bit mystifying that the iPhone doesn't already offer this).

See anything about "unpirating" music? This patent covers what /.-ers often complain lacking on iPod and iPhone: The possibility of buying music wirelessly.

Re:Never Willingly.

[Thirdsin]

Problem is WE know this stuff and can make an informed decision not to purchase. Everyother teenybopper and vain sob on the block will buy the "brand" without a second thought.

Re:Never Willingly.

[maxume]

You left out two options; asking the guy if you can just have the cdr, or asking your friend to burn a copy right then and there.

Re:Never Willingly.

[gnasher719]

'' They're not even subtle about this anymore. They're openly shaking down their own artists.''

I'd say that the iTunes Music Store is very close to being big enough to support an artist. Remember that Apple could easily afford to pay 70 cents to an artist for every song sold, or seven dollars for every album sold. So if iTMS sales = 10 percent of total sales, it's getting worthwhile for the artist. And since the Apple Inc. vs. Apple Corps court case is settled, there are no legal obstacles for Apple to get into the music business in a big way.

Re:Never Willingly.

[torxic]

I would never willingly purchase a device with such a misfeature. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Way to squirt yourselves in the foot, Microsoft and Apple.

There, fixed!

Re:Never Willingly.

[RobertM1968]

They are gonna err on the side of caution.

No, they are gonna err on the side of making as much money off controlling other people's content as possible - regardless of the legality of any aspect of it (The CRB giving them the right, Creative Commons stuff that they shouldnt - but still will - be collecting fees for, etc).

Re:Never Willingly.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why Apple is lumped in here. It is *Microsoft's* patent. Not Apples. I love how /. seems to post these horrible articles that are written by uninformed bloggers who make assumptions like this.

Peronsally, I hope Microsoft does this and makes it a feature of Windows. Nothing will push people off of it faster than their machine telling them they can't listen to their music without paying up to Microsoft.

Re:Never Willingly.

[jedidiah]

The ipod doesn't have to wirelessly share.

OTOH, if you cripple wireless sharing like this you rather eliminate it as a useful feature. Wireless sharing could also be used for wireless syncrhonization and distribution within the set of devices that you own yourself and thus should have the right to play any of your music on.

This just sounds looks like a vampire with a wide enough smile that you just miss seeing the bottoms of his fangs.

Re:Never Willingly.

[jt2377]

wait a minute.

1. you pay for mp3 player say ipod or zune. it doesn't come with any song. you can put your owned song on those devices but player doesn't come with song. why are you counting the hardware as levy?

2. you buy some tune from iTune. you pay Once!

3. you share your purchased song with someone. you pay nothing and probably get a kickback when the person whom you share your tune with pay for those song.

you only pay ONCE. Where the hell do you pay twice? how does this "1 - the levy paid on flash (possibly Apple players are exempt?)" come into play? ipod or zune cost money and it come with no music. do you expect free ipod or zune when you buy music from iTune?

Re:Never Willingly.

[tbischel]

"I would never willingly purchase a device with such a misfeature."

Translation:
I like being able to steal music, and don't appreciate attempts to discourage my nefarious endeavors.

Re:Never Willingly.

[Derosian]

Never before have I heard a better explanation for why people play Halo. Thanks Rick.

Re:Never Willingly.

[Heir Of The Mess]

No wait. Microsoft *Patented* this idea. Now they can use that patent to stop anyone from doing it. Imagine if the RIAA paid off the US government to make this mandatory on all devices, well now there's a barrier.

Re:Never Willingly.

[Heir Of The Mess]

This explains that: http://www.motleycrow.com/ImageHost/crunchy17.jpg

Re:Never Willingly.

[richie2000]

why are you counting the hardware as levy? Because in many countries, recording and storage devices are taxed according to their capacity. This levy is then (in an ideal world) distributed to needy artists, composers and songwriters. In reality, the administration eats most of it and the rest goes to the already rich and popular artists.

Re:Never Willingly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to shoot yourselves in the foot, Microsoft and Apple.

Apple? Way to not comprehend, Ayanami.

Re:Never Willingly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, and they nedd to increase their efforts a thousandfold.

Re:Never Willingly.

[ratboy666]

Where I live, the government charges a levy *on top of the price of the player*. The levy is then distributed to the artists in compensation for copying of music.

A levy is *also* charged on any blank CD I purchase.

So, I stand by my statement: I pay 3 times for music I buy from iTunes ALREADY, if I transfer that music to a CD.

But, its ok -- I support the system :) At least my countries equivalent to the RIAA can't sue anyone!

Re:Never Willingly.

[mgblst]

Except for the fact that the music companies might not appreciate this, and start pulling their cataloges. That would have a big affect on iTunes.

Re:Never Willingly.

[hicksw]

The newspaper is giving the CD away as a cover disk.
They paid Prince $1 million for the right to do so.

I hope it works for the paper. It certainly seems to work for Prince.
If the music shops don't like it, maybe they can start selling newspapers.
--
I just bought the last toy pterdactyl at the museum. Now are they extinct?

Re:Never Willingly.

[Ghubi]

"Prince, whose Purple Rain sold more than 11m copies, also plans to give away a free copy of his latest album with tickets for his forthcoming concerts in London."

Considering how much concert tickets cost these days, and how little it costs to burn a CD, I would say free copy of the album with concert ticket purchase should be standard, but then they would just jack up the price of concert tickets another $15.

Re:Never Willingly.

[jimicus]

They're not even subtle about this anymore. They're openly shaking down their own artists.

Didn't do them any good in this case. I've got a copy of the promotional CD downstairs which, as announced, came free with the Mail on Sunday.

But Prince is an established artist who's already been screwed over by a record company, has learnt from his experiences and gone on to produce more music. He's in a strong enough position that he can afford to do this kind of thing. Perhaps the record industry is trying to send a message to the younger acts who are still a bit wet behind the ears: "you need us, don't piss us off".

Re:Zune

[catbutt]

Didn't Microsoft implement this almost a year ago with the Zune? No.

(did you even read the article title?)

Re:Zune

[ilovegeorgebush]

You are correct, they implemented it with the Zune, but this article refers to Microsoft's success at patenting the technology behind it.

Did you read the article?...

I will not bite!

[bogaboga]

...but Microsoft's patented idea would take the concept further, by allowing users to trade MP3s that may have come from file sharing networks to one another, expiring the song on the recipient's device after three plays, unless the user pays Microsoft a fee in order to continue to listen to the track,...

You know what...? I will not bite. I hope [our own] "DVD Jon" will come up with a way to defeat this nonsense.

Re:I will not bite!

[Constantine XVI]

It's called "not using a Zune"

-DVD Jon

Re:I will not bite!

[Anonymous Coward]

... or an iPod. - me

Re:I will not bite!

[popejeremy]

I've already found a way to beat this nonsense. I run Linux.

Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Where can I get it? Can I please use my Genuine Advantage software to get it! Does any one has a torrent to the software?

So the next thing I'm doing... is: Buying a Zune! :) What a way to market their products! Amazing!

Re:Great!

[feedmetrolls]

Dear AC:

No, Windows Genuine Advantage does not cover it. If you want the software, you must have Windows Vista, unless you already have Vista in which case it will NOT work (whichever is less convenient). You may download the 30-minute trial for $900 and then purchase the software for uh...much, MUCH more.

In addition to Genuine Windows and a Zune, you will also need an XBox 360, Office 2007, Internet Explorer 7, MSN service, a Hotmail account, a second mortgage, and a multitouch coffee table to activate this software. We appreciate your interest in our service and uh...uh...ok, not we don't.

Sincerely,

Steve Ballmer

P.S. In order to reread this letter, please restart your computer and count backwards from three thousand.

P.P.S. CHAIR!!!

Re:Zune

[jonnythan]

Yes, I read the whole article. This is exactly what the Zune does.

I guess the news is that it's patented...?

The Microsoft Tax

[MenTaLguY]

So, if I've got some Public Domain or CC-licensed songs, they're probably going to fall into the "may have come from file sharing sites" bin.

"Those are some nice Creative Commons media files you've got there. It'd be a shame if something happened to them..."

Re:The Microsoft Tax

[khephera]

Files from legal, DRM-free download sites like http://www.emusic.com/ will probably fall into this trap as well.

Re:The Microsoft Tax

[Constantine XVI]

I think it just puts all non-DRM'd files in the bucket of "shame".

Re:The Microsoft Tax

[mrchaotica]

Yeah, if only the screwed-up "justice" system would allow us to hold Microsoft liable for the violation of CC licenses...

Re:The Microsoft Tax

[kebes]

It's even more complicated than that. Most of the Creative Commons licenses explicitly forbid adding DRM to the files. (See FAQ here.) So, adding DRM to CC files would be a license violation.

It's unclear who is actually doing the violating, though. If I transfer a file to you, and our devices conspire to add DRM to the file, who is at fault? Is it me? Is it you? (We should have known how the devices operate, and it is our responsibility from ever using them in conjunction with CC files?) Or is the device manufacturer liable? Normally I would say that the device manufacturer cannot be held accountable for copyright violations on the part of the users... however in this case if the user has no way to turn off the 'feature' then the device is not letting them comply with copyright. In effect, the device is enforcing copyright violations, by not allowing users to respect CC licenses, even if they wanted to.

Okay, the logic is a little contorted, but I think you get the point. Devices that mandatorily add DRM are incompatible with a great many legitimate uses, and in conflict with many distribution licenses.

Re:The Microsoft Tax

[MenTaLguY]

As far as I can figure, the only legally sound thing (as users) is simply not to trade the media in the DRMed form. In practice they'll probably do so anyway.

If you wanted to put legal pressure on the manufacturer, I imagine you'd need to use some more indirect means than suing them for copyright violation, again because the user isn't being forced to use the manufacturer's devices.

Ob Bash Quote

[HungWeiLo]

NES lol
NES I download something from Napster
NES And the same guy I downloaded it from starts downloading it from me when I'm done
NES I message him and say "What are you doing? I just got that from you"
NES "getting my song back fucker"

How will they tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do they expect to distinguish between music that I have legally ripped from purchased CDs and music that has been downloaded from a p2p filesharing network illegally? Also, who gets paid if I decide to trade my own material?

I for one have no interest in using proprietary Microsoft encoding formats to bugger up my ripped files, nor do I have any interest in using a portable device that will only play said formats.

Re:How will they tell the difference?

[Duhavid]

They have an incentive not to care.

Re:How will they tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

They make no difference because they know that the music that you have legally ripped from purchased CDs can be reripped each time you use up your allowed three plays.

Re:How will they tell the difference?

[Grishnakh]

It's not legal to rip music from purchased CDs and transfer it to your portable player; you just have to buy additional copies from online music services. Why is it illegal? Because the RIAA says so. Remember, in the USA, because of English Common Law, what's "legal" isn't determined by legislators or codified laws, it's determined by court cases and decisions. So if you disagree and think it's legal, it's up to you to prove it by winning in court against the RIAA. Good luck with that, unless you have a lot of money and time to spare.

Re:How will they tell the difference?

[mark-t]

It's perfectly legal to rip music from purchased CD's in some parts of the world. Canada for example, in its Copyright law explicitly exempts personal and private use copying of audio works from copyright infringement.

Re:How will they tell the difference?

[Grishnakh]

Sorry, I should have specified that my comment only applies in the USA.

Re:How will they tell the difference?

[mark-t]

So then the opening question remains... how do they tell the difference? Since it's clear that at least in some parts of the world such ripping would be completely legal.

Re:How will they tell the difference?

[Mishotaki]

Worse, how can it tells the difference between a certain song and that song you recorded with your friends and put it on your portable player so that your friends can hear the results?

Re:How will they tell the difference?

[Grishnakh]

Oh that's easy. They just ignore the rest of the world as usual. MS is still thumbing their nose at the EU even though they keep getting hit with fines. Other countries are too busy worshiping or kowtowing to MS to bother asking them to stop their behavior.

Re:How will they tell the difference?

[jedidiah]

You can start by telling us anyone that the RIAA has even attempted to sue for engaging in downloads of pirated music. You can then follow up by telling us who the RIAA has even attempted to sue for personal copying.

The RIAA can make up any shit they like about anyone they like and proceed to bankrupt them.

You can be an Amish minor from a strict sect with no electricty, no CD or other audio player and no CD or other audio media at all and the RIAA could still harras you through barratry.

Who the RIAA does sue are people who they think are the idiots that offer UPLOADS of stuff through apps like Bittorrent that they don't understand.

Strictly speaking, any copying that doesn't involve "swapping" isn't going to be "illegal". It doesn't meet the legal test for being criminal.

Re:How will they tell the difference?

[scottrocket]

"with a percentage going to the person who provided the song." Yeah-who gets paid? The article seemed a little vague; does the uploader get paid? The artist? The original years past uploader from Gnutella? What if the id3 tag contains erroneous information, do they use an algorithm to identify the artist, or does the RIAA do that? What about PD recordings?

Re:How will they tell the difference?

[mark-t]

So MS will just go and delete completely legitimate media files that it doesn't recognize as authorized? You know, if anything could get people away from using Windows, that'd piss people off enough that it might actually do the trick.

Re:How will they tell the difference?

[Grishnakh]

Sounds good to me! I sure hope they take an approach like this.

Re:How will they tell the difference?

[Jesus_666]

how do they tell the difference?

If you ripped it yourself the file is in WMA format with the appropriate ownership information associated. Everything else is from filesharing.

Come on, do you really believe Microsoft will not use this to promote their own formats?

Re:How will they tell the difference?

[gold23]

How do they expect to distinguish between music that I have legally ripped from purchased CDs and music that has been downloaded from a p2p filesharing network illegally?

Checking the evil bit?

No big deal

[qweqwe321]

They already tried a more primitive version of this with the Zune, and we all know how well THAT one worked out.

Um no Holden McNeil

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can hear it, it can be ripped. They will never learn. Also, music was intended to be free and
heard by the masses. Look at artists who paint and sculpt. They don't do it to get paid. So quit
calling musicians artists. If they were artists, they wouldn't be doing it for the money. Give me a break.
Making music is not necessarily that hard...breaking up concrete, working a garbage truck, doing brain
surgery is hard work.

My computer is my mom.

[SeaFox]

So now our computers are going to delete files we got from P2P networks for us. So much for using my own system with it spying on me.

Bill Gates new nickname:
The Man with the Palladium Gun.

Re:Zune

[caffeinemessiah]

Here you go, a pointer to the summary for one who "read the whole article":

unless the user pays Microsoft a fee in order to continue to listen to the track, with a percentage going to the person who provided the song. As the abstract puts it, "even [the] resale of pirated media content [can] benefit... the copyright holder."'"

The key point is that you have a chance to convert "pirated" media to "unpirated" by paying for it. The difference seems to be that the MP3 in question could have been illegally obtained from a file sharing network rather than as the product of another Zune user's legal squirt onto you.

So if the "services" offered are illegal

[Lewrker]

like...say... prostitution, then the person benefitting from it would be the...pimp! Microsoft Pimp 2007!
Wow...just wow.

Never Willingly-vote with YOUR $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

"I would never willingly purchase a device with such a misfeature. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Way to shoot yourselves in the foot, Microsoft and Apple."

Pfft! Do you really think you'll be missed? If you all can't even get up the courage to influence the political process? What makes you think you'll influence the economic one?

Re:Never Willingly-vote with YOUR $$$

[Nullav]

You really need to work on your trolling. You can't just go and completely derail a thread in a single post; you need to be subtle. You can't go from hardware-enforced DRM to politics.

That aside, I would never touch a device that did this kind of thing to me. Doing so would mean that I couldn't even use tracks ripped from a CD I owned. That in itself would cause a boycott of the product from all of the negative reviews. If I bought something that did this, I'd take it back right after I found out about this 'feature' and spread the word about my dissatisfaction with it.

I'm sure this will no doubt raise some serious legal questions in the future. Let's say I recorded my own song and distributed it freely online under the condition that no one could sell it, and that no DRM could be enforced in relation to that file (not necessarily appended to the file in question).
What exactly happens when that song is 'squirted' to one of these devices? Does it simply bring up a message demanding that I pay protection money to unlock it again? Does it bring up a similar message but direct me to a site to purchase it from (in this case a 404, breaking the license by enforcing time-based DRM, or a place to purchase it from, violating the license by selling it)?

The only thing that comes to mind that wouldn't be an egregious violation of my license would be to only do this with (or not do this with) specifically tagged tracks. (Evil bit, anyone?)

Re:Zune

[catbutt]

How exactly does the current zune allow you to "unpirate" music?

Awesome

[sveard]

trade MP3s that may have come from file sharing networks to one another [...] with a percentage going to the person who provided the song
That's great! Earn money for providing songs on file sharing networks!

I had hoped that Microsoft would one day support P2P.

Re:Awesome

[marcello_dl]

You're dealing with RIAA blockheads- your site will likely still be illegal unless the last of free-from-DRM devices has gone off the 'net.

Re:Awesome

[Lorkki]

Thank you for your vigilance and cooperation, citizen. Your generous compensation will be arriving shortly in the form of official Entertainment Credits, which you will be able to exchange for viewings of your choice at your nearest licensed terminal.

Remember: unregistered distribution is an act of treason. Trust the computer. The computer is your friend.

Re:Awesome

[Dekortage]

I had hoped that Microsoft would one day support P2P.

You're missing the point. They ARE supporting P2P networks. Once they've ruined all the others with this viral DRM stuff, they'll launch their own P2P network that works slightly better/faster/nicer, and proclaim themselves as saving the day!

As Douglas Adams said, "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armor to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he, who by peddling second-rate technology, led them into it in the first place."

i was thinking on something more .. free

[Z80a]

basically the idea is a program that scans the MP3 or rom or pirate CD/DVD,the value of it,and then sends the info to a site,that gives you a way to pay for the file and when payed,gives you a eletronic license that have a unique ID and etc basically a software that allows you to download something from a illegal place,legalize it,and only pay for the license,instead of paying for the media/taxes and etc

Re:Sounds good....

[glwtta]

Yes! As a big fan of Microsoft's music, I can't wait to pay them for it.

Re:Sounds good....

[A beautiful mind]

So let me get this straight, you're suggesting that since a lot of us does not want to pay the mafiaa and likes, then we should pay the mafiaa and the likes belatedly? The problem is with the distribution cartel, not at the payment level!

What about live free legal music.

[CoJeff]

I see alot about sharing music and if the person who go the shared file will be able to buy it. However I'm a huge live music fan and download stuff all the time. I'd say over 85% of what I have can't be bought in a a store or online store. So why should it be limited to 3 plays/3 days???

Soon we will be paying to hear our own recording

[John Sokol]

I have seen these Automatic Identification of MP3 files mess up often.
Even in scenarios where I record some of my own voice,just me just speaking into a mic and recording it, these systems have misidentified it as some pop song and shows an album cover of this mistakenly identified song.

So it's just a matter of time before they will try to force me to pay to listen to these recording that I make myself when ever this wonderful scheme messes up.

Only a truly evil mind could invent such a scheme.

Moral of the story....

[HerculesMO]

Make sure you pirate MP3s.

Re:Moral of the story....

[Anonymous Coward]

And the OS while you're at it...

Why are the users paying microsoft for access?

[3seas]

isn't this patent supposed to be sold to the record industry that they can profit from it?

Sounds like extortion to me, that MS is putting a tax on users for property that they do not own.... sort like what they are doing with claims they own IP in linux and offering protection for a price.

MS the new techno mob?

Re:Why are the users paying microsoft for access?

[3seas]

Perhaps this hows the essence of MS mentality.... profit off the works of others.

Proof they invent nothing new.

Re:Why are the users paying microsoft for access?

[asylumx]

It's simple. MS is providing the service. Just like how you pay the phone company to use the phone, and the 900 number to use their service. Seriously, there are better arguments than "How dare MS try to make money!" Arguments that can be made without bastardizing words like "tax"...

Re:Why are the users paying microsoft for access?

[jedidiah]

No, they are building a toll road on what would otherwise be a public right of way. The term TAX is perfectly appropriate.

Re:Why are the users paying microsoft for access?

[gstoddart]

MS the new techno mob?

Nope, they're now the old guard of the techno-mob; prior to that it was IBM. Microsoft has had a leveraged position against most of the industry for well over a decade.

Cheers

Re:Soon we will be paying to hear our own recordin

[sveard]

Or maybe your voice resembles that of Michael Jackson?!

Re:Zune

[mrchaotica]

Well, even unencumbered music that you "squirt" gets DRM applied to it (note: possibly in violation of the music's license, if it is released e.g. under certain Creative Commons licenses), so the Zune implements at least half the idea.

Microsoft sure knows what consumers want!

[tkrotchko]

What great insight... they know if you give the customer what they want, they'll come back and buy more. Customers have been begging them, please, put DRM on our music collection that we already purchased and was in DRM'd. I know that DRM is actually DCE and that it enables me more better!

That's why Vista and The Zune are such great hits. The customer was begging for them.

Re:Sounds good....

[CoJeff]

There are plenty of FREE & LEGAL sites out there. A lot of bands support trading of live music. So yes I do support the artists. I go to as many shows when they come to town that I can afford. When was the last time you saw a concert??? When you buy a CD it goes to RIAA not the artist. If you want to support the artist go to a concert and buy some merch.

Damn Media player

[TheRealMindChild]

Media Player already asks me if I want to "purchase" the mp3 Im playing... even when it came from my own cds.

Why would they need a patent?

[Ant P.]

They've been corrupting users' files for 20 years now, and nobody's bothered trying to steal that idea in that time.

Re:Sounds good....

[timmarhy]

show me where this states the artist will see a dime of this money? thats right, your the idiot, not us.

They are such Retards.

[mombodog]

They should have embraced this Idea way back when Napster was first started, don't fight it, but instead, "Make it Pay" Boy are they slow on the uptake. If the Music industry dies as we know it, it will be due to their own greed and stupidity. It is a cartel anyway, no big loss if it does.

Percentage? What percentage?

[UberDragon]

Once again corporate music america trying to make it harder for the little guys to do it alone. Since they can't keep up with technology and protecting their own investments the next best thing is to make it so the little guys music won't play without selling it to a label and ... Microsoft. Why can't they read the same statistics I see that seem to indicate "pirated" music may actually increase music sales as listeners are often using the "try before you buy" method these days. And rightfully so if you ask me.

Re:Sounds good....

[w.p.richardson]

I've never made any bones about it, I won't pay for anything. So it's not like it matters to me one way or another. I have always had one logical consistent position on this - no money for anyone from me.

Re:Sounds good....

[pla]

Surely all you generous patrons of the arts will be jumping at the chance to belatedly pay!

I already paid for (almost) all of my music. And no way in hell will I pay again just to have it in my computer or my car or at work or on my phone or my portable player or anywhere. I bought the CD, I ripped the CD, and I will unapologetically play that rip in any way I so desire.

Now, the strawman you've made, while it may not apply yet, will come to matter more and more, as we see artists releasing content available from only a single DRM-using provider, such as iTunes[*] or the Zune. Then, the situation you describe may well come to pass, in that I will pirate the music before I'll accept a DRM-encumbered form of it.


* - I already have one such track, though not actually pirated in that I "own" it (spare me the licensing-vs-buying BS), as a free promotional download available only through iTMS to subscribers of the band's mailing list. But if not for the magic of Hymn nee PlayFair, I'd have no use for it, as I refuse to run iTunes and don't have an iPod.

M$-Ballmer Language

[twitter]

did you even read the article title?

There's hardly anything new about protection money. The dialog to unPirate goes like this:

"Hey, that's a nice looking music collection you got there. It'd be a shame if anything bad happened to it. Pay me and you are legit."

It will be a miracle if the RIAA sees a penny of it, and the artist slice will be even smaller, of course, so this hardly unpirates anything.

To use Ballmer language, they got a patent on "squirting" into "the social". It's just as dishonest as it sounds.

Re:M$-Ballmer Language

[ShieldW0lf]

We're sorry, your hospital didn't pay its monthly software bills on time. There must have been a mix up.

I agree and...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am very glad that Microsoft patented this bad idea. Hopefully the existence if the patent will discourage everyone else from implementing or using it.

Of course, I also think that this idea doesn't even remotely qualify as an invention, and the notion that a business process like this one can be patented is quite absurd. I would like to see the patent invalidated on those grounds...however...given that this is unlikely to happen any time soon, I can take some small consolation in the hope that the patent will continue to do what patents do best: discourage implementation.

Re:Sounds good....

[JM78]

So M$ should somehow profit from this because...? Honestly, I didn't RTFA, but this sounds to me like they've patented profiting off illegal content someone else went to the effort to downloaded. And since when does paying the **AA amount to supporting the arts? I could be wrong here but it seems to me they're in the distribution business, not cultural charity.

I can see only one explanation here: You're a MAFIAA spy! Come on, admit it.

Sounds Illegal

[AnyThingButWindows]

Sounds illegal since we have this thing called fair use granted by the Supreme court. Not to mention that no one in their right mind would buy suck a broken product that only allowed a song to be played 3 times before you have to send off an extortion fee to a fortune 500 company, who made it's profits breaking anti-trust laws, and worming it's way through the Unconstitutional WTO.

Off topic Rant: HA indeed. Speaking of the WTO. The WTO has no authority over anyone in the states, and is not a part of the federal system either. The WTO is a self made wanna-be authority that is unconstitutional, therefore holds no authority over U.S. citizens. If an authority is not a part of the thee branches of government, or state. Therefore it holds no power.

Back to the point. How would such a device determine what song is 'copyrighted' and which one isn't? It sounds like a device that must have a dependence on some sort of hash, or tag, within the audio file itself. It must, otherwise, it couldn't tell what was copyrighted, and what isn't. It should be a matter of ripping the tag from the file before it enters the player at some point. How would it determine if it came from another country? If I download a song from Germany that is copyrighted, then there is no constitutional legal authority that tells me that I must pay some guy on the other side of the globe some fee in God only what knows type of money I don't use. I don't trade with Germany, so I don't have to comply with their laws, much less care.

Re:Sounds Illegal

[UncleFluffy]

The WTO is a self made wanna-be authority that is unconstitutional,

US Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 2

(Though I agree with you that the WTO sucks).

Re:Sounds Illegal

[Grishnakh]

Off topic Rant: HA indeed. Speaking of the WTO. The WTO has no authority over anyone in the states, and is not a part of the federal system either. The WTO is a self made wanna-be authority that is unconstitutional, therefore holds no authority over U.S. citizens. If an authority is not a part of the thee branches of government, or state. Therefore it holds no power.

Sorry, but the Constitution has no bearing on whether something is illegal or not, unless the current SCOTUS decides it does. There's lots of laws and policies in force today that are blatantly unconstitutional, but that doesn't stop them from having power over you.

Re:Sounds Illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

but that doesn't stop them from having power over you Yep, The WTO as I see it is about goverment level agreements which may or may not be codified into a law or a regulation as a way to enforce a negotiated trade policy.

Re:Sounds Illegal

[AnyThingButWindows]

"When all other amendments fail, the second won't" - Michael Badnarik

http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com/

I call you out, and your bullshit.

Re:Sounds Illegal

[Grishnakh]

What bullshit are you referring to? There's lots of laws and government policies that are blatantly unconstitutional, many of them quite recent, such as Guantanamo/"enemy combatants", unauthorized wiretapping, any type of gun bans (2A), heck even prison sentences are unconstitutional (cruel and unusual punishment).

Re:Sounds Illegal

[jedidiah]

Actually, the SCOTUS notion of not upsetting the applecart too much is just about the only principle you can expect the Supremes to respect anymore. Otherwise, recent republican justices would be running amok and laughing maniacally while doing it.

You just can't beat the sense of process control out of some of these senior judges...

Re:Sounds Illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

heck even prison sentences are unconstitutional (cruel and unusual punishment). Perhaps prison should not be considered as a punishment but as a way to protect the community. Therefore, it would be logical to change prison conditions in such a way that any inmate would have a large possibility to become a productive and accepted member of the community without becoming a threat to the said community.

Re:Sounds Illegal

[Grishnakh]

Sounds like a nice idea, but I've never heard of any country doing something like this successfully.

The way it is now, prison is definitely cruel and unusual punishment. It was also like that hundreds of years ago. That's why early Americans didn't have prisons; they only had swift punishments. If you were a murderer, you were hanged, and that was it. Other crimes got lesser punishments (like brands); but all punishments were over quickly, and prisoners were either dead, or could go on with their lives, instead of sitting in a cell for decades.

For some really strange reason, people at some point in history got the idea that being killed (swiftly and relatively painlessly) was somehow bad or excessive, and being locked up with lots of other prisoners for the rest of one's life and being ass-raped was somehow preferable to this. This type of punishment amounts to extreme torture in my view; I'd rather have a quick bullet in the head instead of this.

oh wait patent MP3 MLMs

[micromuncher]

why not have a pyramid of profit up the distribution chain...

And you use Media Player, because ....?

[Anonymous Coward]

Media Player already asks me if I want to "purchase" the mp3 Im playing... even when it came from my own cds.

Maybe you didn't get the memo, but you are allowed to stop hitting yourself in the head when it hurts.

Re:And you use Media Player, because ....?

[TheRealMindChild]

I see where your going... "Stop using media player". But the fact remains, media player will launch in a fraction of a second, on a locked down no-permission-to-wipe-your-ass install of XP, where something like winamp actually takes MINUTES to launch when you can't write to its directory.

Re:And you use Media Player, because ....?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wouldnt you always run as administrator, or at aleast power user?

if winamp takes minutes to launch you got problems boy.. i have a 14000 song playlist and it just launched in 6 seconds. all hdds involved 7200 rpm ata-133 ram speed 266.

*Hint* give EVERYONE access to write to the directory. Sure they could delete the file, but what kind of home environment do you live in?!?!

Besides, media player cant be controled by keyboard macros. What are you alt tabbing from like every game you ever run? /shudder

Re:Sounds good....

[iceOlate]

Personally, I would only be in favor of something like this if ALL of the proceeds went directly to the artist. Obviously, that's not going to happen, as the RIAA will be taking the biggest cut, and then almost as bad, you got MicroSoft in the mix also getting a percentage. I'd much rather buy the music directly from the artist, even if that is for some reason a bit less convenient, than give more money to these assholes that don't deserve a cent.

Also, like someone else said, this sort of DRM should NOT be allowed to affect music from artists who are not even part of an RIAA governed label, as they have no right to collect money for or in any way regulate the music distributed by such artists.

Re:Soon we will be paying to hear our own recordin

[Stormx2]

Misidentification isn't the only issue. As discussed before, stuff like this breaks a bunch of licenses (e.g. from bands who license stuff under creative commons sa)

spam?

[cstdenis]

with a percentage going to the person who provided the song How long 'till we start getting music spammed over bluetooth in the hope we will buy it and the spammer will get their cut. I could see it be a significant problem if its poorly implemented.

Hold on a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a patent on a method of licensing content distributed without authorization of the copyright holder, with a percentage of the license fee going to the person who did the unauthorized distribution in the first place?!? And when the distributors show up to claim their reward, they really won't get hit with an RIAA lawsuit for distributing the content in the first place?!? The mind boggles...

Queue the obligatory "It's a trap!" quotes!

So many things wrong with this.

[gillbates]

unless the user pays Microsoft a fee in order to continue to listen to the track, with a percentage going to the person who provided the song.

So, if I read this right, Microsoft has patented making money from copyright infringement of someone else's work.

• If I was the artist, I wouldn't be happy to settle for a percentage of the sale. As the owner of a copyrighted work, I'm entitled to the full sale price regardless of what Microsoft and others may believe.
• As a user, I'd be really angry if this "technology" decided that songs for which I had paid, or worse, recorded myself (as in, me being the artist) were invalid after 3 plays.
• I'm pretty sure that any implementation of the patented invention would give rise to contributory infringement claims against the maker. The whole idea behind this is to encourage others to commit copyright infringement in order to benefit the patent holder, not the artist.

Re:So many things wrong with this.

[cstdenis]

If I was the artist, I wouldn't be happy to settle for a percentage of the sale. As the owner of a copyrighted work, I'm entitled to the full sale price regardless of what Microsoft and others may believe. No you aren't. You think the artists now get all the money from a CD sale? At best they get a tiny % and the rest goes to the RIAA. Even the riaa doesn't get the whole sale price, the store selling it gets their chunk too. MS is just acting as a middle man and taking their cut as any would -- and they happen to be offering a chunk to the person who referred the sale.

Re:So many things wrong with this.

[pandrijeczko]

Microsoft has patented making money from copyright infringement of someone else's work

Hey, it's Microsoft. They make money from other peoples' ideas. That's what they've always done.

Re:So many things wrong with this.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Here's my solution:

Microsoft, if they care so much about copyright infringement, should develop it's own 100%-legal-no-matter-what-you-share-on-there P2P client. The client can apply DRM on all the songs (transcoding if necessary), with the same three play or three day restriction. The P2P client would have to limit the downloading of the same song over and over in short time periods, but hopefully that could provide a legal outlet for the try-before-you-buy pirates (I believe there are quite a few out there).

Re:So many things wrong with this.

[Drew_9999]

If I was the artist, I wouldn't be happy to settle for a percentage of the sale. As the owner of a copyrighted work, I'm entitled to the full sale price regardless of what Microsoft and others may believe. As the owner of a copyrighted work, I would be more than a little upset that someone else had decided for what price and in what way I was going to sell my work. 'cause, you know, that's not legal.

Re:So many things wrong with this.

[gillbates]

Perhaps some other artists have signed deals which entitle them to only a fraction of the retail price of their works. But I have not, and even if I had, my agreement is between myself and a third party - not Microsoft. Microsoft would have no rights whatsoever to decide the terms on which my copyrighted works were sold unless I had an explicit agreement with them.

Re:So many things wrong with this.

[jimicus]

All of your points are technically correct, but you missed out one major one:

• Microsoft, Sony BMG, Warner Music, EMI et al have enough lawyers that they can keep you as an artist tied up in court from now until several years after you're dead. Now go away and record that third album you're contracted to produce, puny mortal.
  

Re:Zune

[nightgeometry]

I used to think this, but apparently they do not DRM the received track (in the normal sense), they just delete everything after three plays or days (or whatever it is).

Which seemed a pretty sneaky way round drm'ing something that they are not allowed to. But... if they let you 'unpirate' something, then what they do is more arguably drm'ing, meaning potential rights issues (maybe).

Which is kinda interesting after a few shots of whisly.

Article title

[Aggrav8d]

Makes me think of the "phone buster buster".

The perfect excuse

[DrYak]

We've been exchanging tunes, photos video clips and whatever over bluetooth between phones and PDAs in Europe, *for AGES*.

Microsoft's patent is now the perfect excuse :
- No sorry, there can't be any piracy prevention over bluetooth for devices from manufacturer X, because manufacturer X sells also their products in the USA, and Microsoft has a monopoly on such anti-piracy implements. Making an anticopy measures on top of bluetooth would cut them from that (lucrative) market because of patent infringement.

Or whenever a vendor tries anyway to "Zune"-ize our bluetooth device in Europe, just reflash it with the American MS-patent-complying firmware.

Re:The perfect excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft's patent is now the perfect excuse :
- No sorry, there can't be any piracy prevention over bluetooth for devices from manufacturer X, because manufacturer X sells also their products in the USA, and Microsoft has a monopoly on such anti-piracy implements. Making an anticopy measures on top of bluetooth would cut them from that (lucrative) market because of patent infringement.

You do realize that it is common for manufacturers to release different products in different areas, right? Frequently what happens is like with older game systems, the ones sold in the US were different than the ones sold in Asia. NES in the US, and Famicom in Asia. Just because a patent is granted in the US doesn't mean that the European patent office is going to say no to the application. It may very well end up being approved.

I find it disturbing that you don't realize that the hullabaloo about MS and its monopolies has nothing to do with the monopolies themselves and everything to do with how it was gained. Europe also grants corporations a legal monopoly from time to time. How else do you explain the existence of patents in Europe?

And when all is said and done, the efforts to break the evil monopoly just resulted in a version of Windows that hardly anybody bought, because most people wanted to get WMP and IE bundled in, even if they didn't actually use them.

Limited Impact. Predictable.

[twitter]

Seriously, in the grand scheme of things, with people downloading tracks from p2p networks and ripping their own CDs, is this going to make an impact whatsoever?

The impact of this scheme is limited by poor sales of the Zune. While Apple was able to sell half a million iPhones on it's first weekend, Zune missed it's million player target last month. People don't want a music player that "squirts" expiring music. Part of the reason is because they don't really care to share their music like the MAFIAA thinks they do. The other part of poor Zune sales is that people want to own, not rent, the music they have. They continue to purchase and rip CDs and that is still the major source of people's music collections despite abundant, legal and free music on line. Because of this, they can put up with iPod's lame sharing capability but think very dimly of Zune's ability to disappear music.

M$ can keep their crappy patent - no one is going to buy a device that implements it.

Re:Zune

[mrsteveman1]

"another Zune user's legal squirt onto you"

no comment necessary :D

See the diagram in the --MS-- patent?

[jpetts]

Ha! If that's not an iPod Nano, I don't know what it is.

Why not a Zune?

Sounds Like What Imeem.Com Has been doing

[Anonymous Coward]

User uploads music to share with friends, imeem checks to see what label it's on and then pays the label every time it's listened to. Doesn't matter if you download it or rip it, imeem users Snocap to figure out what the music sounds like.
They just signed a deal with Warner brothers too, who were suing them until a couple of days ago.

Music Players Spying On You?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple solution - don't use Microsoft hardware. Problem solved. Even if Apple roll over and follow Microsoft, simply use the Chinese knock off player that comes out with the same features that doesn't have this "feature".

People need to vote with their wallets. They certainly have with Vista ;)

Re:Music Players Spying On You?

[WingedEarth]

Maybe this is why we can't replace batteries in Apple iPods. The iPods die, and We're dependent on their updates. The updates will contain worse and worse features.

Re:Sounds good....

[Anonymous Coward]

No he's not, or he wouldn't have the Pandora link in their sig. The same Pandora they are trying to kill. Hey! He's listening to music for free. Get 'em!

Re:Sounds good....

[AndyCR]

Really? Who stole anything? If I want music for free, there are far easier and more legal ways than to go into my local store, grab a CD, stick it under my coat and walk out.

Oh, you mean copyright infringement. Why didn't you say so?

Non Free Music Sucks.

[twitter]

He has the music there, if we have similar playing devices, when not let me cherry pick a few songs off his immediately, then 3 days later when I'm syncing ask if I want to buy them? I get the music legally, after a few days free use, the IP holder gets their due ...

Once you pay the Danegeld you never get rid of the Dane. M$'s rent a music schemes are not a one time payment, and they will try to push everyone into it. Do you think they will pay the RIAA or artists what's fair? Yeah, right.

An alternative you left out is that artists adopt other methods of promoting themselves that don't involve suing people. That way, you get to trade as much of your friend's collection as you want. The artist gets promoted and everyone wins, except the mafiaa.

Will this be relevant in a DRM-free world?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last100 says:

Paying users for sharing tracks that subsequently lead to a purchase is an interesting concept, which at least shows some innovation in terms of how to convert piracy into legitimate music sales. However, with the music industry moving away from DRM and towards universal formats, the idea may have already expired before it ever hits market.

Weed does this / slashback link

[ejoe_mac]

Yea, gotta work on the title, but Sir Mix-a-lot has some tracks out under a license like this:

http://slashdot.org/articles/04/01/10/2042228.shtm l?tid=126&tid=141&tid=187&tid=188

Looks like the service shut down though:

http://weedshare.com/

Re:Weed does this / slashback link

[pandrijeczko]

It's hip hop - what's that got to do with music?

That's just a big black bloke talking over a repetitive riff he's stolen from some proper music.

Re:Weed does this / slashback link

[ejoe_mac]

You missed the point - there is prior art here - which would invalidate the patent.

Re:Zune

[Pc_Madness]

TCPA ftl. :(

Prior art: speakers connected to mp3 player

[noidentity]

'Nuff said.

Re:Sounds good....

[superbus1929]

There's a difference between "want to support the artists" and "don't want to support the enablers while the artists get screwed", which is essentially happening here.

Also: the fees would go to MICROSOFT, with a pittance going to the artists... of that, it's very highly likely that even a large portion of THAT pittance would end up going to the MAFIAA.

So in conclusion: artists are losing more legitimate sales by people fed up with this nonsense, while the people too stupid to avoid paying this horrible, horrible fee to listen to what could be their own legally obtained music wouldn't even be sending significant revenue to the artists.

Re:Sounds good....

[SanityInAnarchy]

Come back when you actually understand what "whatever inane reason" actually is.

In my case, it arises from wanting to have my media (music, movies, TV shows, whatever) work on open source software, and without stupid restrictions. Note how people who actually buy DVDs are FORCED (yes, FORCED -- they tend to disable the fastforward/skip features) to watch anti-piracy bullshit, while the actual pirates that it's targeted at can either skip over or slice out the parts they don't like?

The other problem is one of paranoia. Simply put, it's partly the stupid restrictions that they've put there now, and partly the knowledge that they could put whatever the hell restrictions they want on it and you can't do anything about it -- unless you've already successfully pirated it, or ripped it using illegal tools (yes, it's ILLEGAL to rip a DVD), so you now actually have a copy that they can't do anything to, ever.

In any case, if I was going to buy music, I'd go buy it directly from the artist, or from a site which gives the artist a good chunk of the price -- more like 50%, instead of a couple pennies.

Re:Sounds good....

[Tuoqui]

If I want to support an artist I'll drop a $5 bill into an envelope and mail it to them. It'd probably be a hundred times more than they'd get from the RIAA selling me a CD.

more incorrect uses of "song" and "music"

[brre]

The song doesn't expire in three days. You mean "recording". The song remains. You're free to sing it whenever you like. Your right to play a particular recording expires.

Absolutely Useless To Me

[pandrijeczko]

Yep, I download MP3s from Usenet and BitTorrent.

That's because I listen to pretty obscure (on the whole) rock & blues music that doesn't get any airplay - so I use the downloads to preview an album. If I like it, I buy it because I'm old fashioned and like a nice shiny disc to play loud on a reasonable hifi - if I don't like it, I delete the MP3s.

I will NEVER pay for downloaded music and the stuff I download for free is not something I necessary play immediately - it might sit on my hard disk for a week or two before I get round to listening to it. Therefore this system is of bugger all use to me.

With that said, I really don't care what the RIAA, MS etc do to restricting music - I have almost 1000 albums on CD and more than enough music to listen to over the rest of my lifetime anyway.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the teens and "20 somethings" these days treat music as a fashion item that just gets deleted when it becomes unfashionable - as a result, it's mostly plasticised trash that they don't want to pay for. Therefore the RIAA and MS will force them to pay for it.

WMP vs. MPC?

[tepples]

But the fact remains, media player will launch in a fraction of a second, on a locked down no-permission-to-wipe-your-ass install of XP, where something like winamp actually takes MINUTES to launch when you can't write to its directory. And how fast does Windows Media Player launch compared to Media Player Classic?

Re:Sounds good....

[prockcore]

thats right, your the idiot, not us.

My the idiot disagrees.

Apologies (as necessary) to Jeff Foxworthy

[Life2Short]

If you're depending on the current Supreme Court to uphold prior decisions, you might be an optimist...

Re:Soon we will be paying to hear our own recordin

[Grishnakh]

Unless you're a recording artist, signed to an RIAA label, you simply have no business recording your own voice. You have no reason to record your own music, either; all the music you could ever want is produced by the RIAA.

Should this patent application be approved?

[GeekTwoDotOh]

This one is actually a patent application, not a patent. Also this is part of the Peer to patent pilot, so there is a chance to give feedback on it before it is approved.
The p2p discussion is online right here

So anyone can respond to this...there is still time!

Re:Should this patent application be approved?

[Anonymous Coward]

let's have a tag patentapplicationnotapatent

Fundamentally insane to me.

[Ayanami Rei]

I would never want a personal media device to take initiative to disable or delete data. What if I ripped that MP3 legally from a CD I own? Would I have to pre-protect it with their propietary DRM before using the device? Fuck that bullshit.

That's a path I'd rather not go down... devices fingerprinting (through checksums or audio watermarks or whatever) the data on them like little spies and doing whatever.

No way in hell. I like my MP3 players to be glorified UMDs (that just so happen to have a headphone jack).

Re:Fundamentally insane to me.

[DJ_Maiko]

Yea, I agree, it's kinda insane (not to mention INANE)!

This is the very reason why I don't own an iPod. If I own MY MUSIC & encode it to mp3 for space-saving purposes, why would I want a media player that doesn't jive (mp4) & that tells me what I can & can't do (or deletes my very own files). No thx, I'll wait for someone to come up with a better solution. People think they're so cool w/their little iPods but all they've done is give up complete creative control of THEIR media...the Zune isn't much different.

As a DJ/Producer, giving up creative control of something that I own is the worst scenario possible. It's this very reason why SO many musicians are going to indie or smaller labels since going to large record labels usually ends up with them losing total creative control (not to mention a smaller slice of the cd sales pie). Different industry, similar model.

Re:Fundamentally insane to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just making stuff up. the ipod doesn't tell you what you can do, and certainly doesn't delete your files. If you're think that's what this story is about, read it again. It's Microsoft that wants to do these things, not Apple.

OGG

[sybesis]

why do you use MP3 when you could use OGG or FLAC?

This is a terrible feature

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the most underthought, misconstrued idea I have seen in a long time. Basically, if I record a song on my computer and put it on a Zune, and want to share it with a friend, he will only be able to listen to it 3 times before Microsoft wants some money? You've got to be kidding me. Who made them the enforcers of copyright laws? If anyone I know ever considers a Zune, I will be sure from now on to wholeheartedly recommend almost anything else. This is just inexcusable.

Share a podcase or Creative Commons Music

[roseblood]

So what happens when I share some creative commons work that does not allow modification as terms of it's license. Share and Share alike. Non-commercial no derivative. In both cases no charges are allowed to be made for the work. In the no-derivative license, well, that's self explanatory, you can't change it. Adding DRM will change it.

So just like the ZUNE DRM in transfers, the new DRM also ignores creative commons.

Bleah!

Re:Share a podcase or Creative Commons Music

[Ash Vince]

Who cares?

Nobody who releases stuff under creative commons licences is going to sue. Even if they do how much can they actually sue for? Much less then micorsoft will make off this venture anyway so they still come out in the black.

Welcome to capitalism. It doesn't matter if you break a few laws providing that the worst you get is a fine less than your profits.

Re:Share a podcase or Creative Commons Music

[Grax]

I do not believe that to be true. People that release their works under the creative commons license expect that license to be honored. They are not just throwing their stuff out there for everyone to use, they are releasing their works in the manner they choose to.

Treaties

[tepples]

The WTO is a self made wanna-be authority that is unconstitutional, therefore holds no authority over U.S. citizens. If an authority is not a part of the thee branches of government, or state. Therefore it holds no power. WTO has no power in the United States except that delegated to it by Congress through the ratification of treaties with other WTO members.

How would such a device determine what song is 'copyrighted' and which one isn't? All sound recordings are copyrighted. Sound recordings published before 1972 are subject to state law copyright until 2067, and sound recordings published afterward are subject to federal copyright until 95 years after the end of the year of publication.

Looks like more good news to me!

[FridayBob]

While others continues to do their best to attract users away from Microsoft, Microsoft seems to be doing its damnedest to push it's own users towards other solutions. Their behavior reminds me of what Bush said after winning his next election: "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it." The only difference is that Dubya knows his days are numbered, so he can afford to misbehave. Microsoft may outlast him, but at this rate it may not be by more than a few years.

the eternal shuffle

[Joe Snipe]

I just renamed all my mp3's happy_birthday. your move microsoft!

Re:Sounds good....

[moxley]

It's kind of off-topic, semantic, nitpicky, etc -

And I agreed with your point -

- but when pointing out what an idiot someone is, it really hurts your case to not be able to spell "you're."

I cracked it already...

[paynesmanor]

I will just keep transfering the music between my 4 divices before the three uses is up.

Question is, why is this patentable?

[Joce640k]

Why is this patentable?

Re:Question is, why is this patentable?

[Aliriza]

Because they wants our money , they may even patent me , this feels like that I am gear of a maschinery that brings them money.

Re:Question is, why is this patentable?

[totally bogus dude]

Because it happens on a computer, duh!

Re:Question is, why is this patentable?

[BillyBlaze]

Because life's not fair.

Re:Question is, why is this patentable?

[IrquiM]

Because it's in the US, and there you can get away with patenting whatever you like

Re:Question is, why is this patentable?

[jimicus]

There's nothing particularly magic about "user decides they like the music so goes out and buys a legal copy". What's different is "the device forces the user to do this automatically", which arguably is a technological innovation.

Pwned by Ultra-Pirates

[ToxicBanjo]

...expiring the song on the recipient's device after three plays, unless the user pays Microsoft a fee in order to continue to listen to the track.

OMG! They have stolen all of my Internats bounty!

I curse ye Blackbeard Balmer and ye dirty band of DEVELOPERSDEVELOPERS Pirates!!!

Re:Limited Impact. Predictable.

[RobertM1968]

I'm curious... did anyone really stop to consider if this is to bolster Zune sales?

Because if so, then they all seem to have missed one major point/possibility that could be going on behind the scenes...

What if MS is negotiating something with the RIAA? What if the advent of a device like this - that only MS can provide - is the content lock that the RIAA accepts? What if RIAA member companies are thus pressured into not selling to iTunes? (and only to MS and their protected player). What if this is part of MS's attempt at monopoly via patent with the RIAA wholly endorsing them in a way that will cripple the rest of the online music industry?

Just a thought. It could happen... and what two companies are better suited for each other than Microsoft and the RIAA?

Only time Until this is a Feature in Office

[matrixghost1286]

Imagine if Microsoft would someday decide to introduce this "feature" to say office...

Clippy From Word:"I see that you have this document that you created,
if you would like to edit or print this document again,
you will pay us .001 cents per word in the document or else.

We are Microsoft.
We can do and charge whatever we want.
Resistance is futile.

And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

An AC patented a process by which Microsoft can suck his nutsack.

Re:And in other news...

[Jesus_666]

Please, spare us the technical diagrams.

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which reminds me, there might be some issues here with prior art...

This seems terribly illegal

[DragonTHC]

I think it's time that congress understood just what they've been selling.

They're selling our rights.

Microsoft can make their hardware to demand an extortion fee.

They will get sued.

I will not purchase any hardware which enables these restrictions and extortion.

That's ok

[iminplaya]

I just patented a process to "repirate" music. It uses a process of magnetizing oxide particles by passing them over a coil of wire. I call it the "cassette player". It's even portable. DRM that! And don't think breaking off that little tab will help ya. I got lots of scotch tape*, too. Nyah!

*no doubt they'll try to have that declared a circumvention device.

a new..

[MrKaos]

microsoft tax

In Soviet Russia...

[bitRAKE]

...your Microsoft wrapped p2p files delete you.

bitmunk

[dannannan]

Bitmunk is already doing this, just on PCs instead of handheld devices. But it takes a lot of $$$ to grease the wheels. If you look at Bitmunk, you'll notice that what's missing is most of the content from the big labels. It takes serious cash just to get distributor access to their catalogs.

Maybe Microsoft's patent has something new in it (user lockout after 3 days) but allowing peer distribution where intermediaries get paid is prior art.

related?

[Jeek Elemental]

reports are popping up that punters at the receiving end of a zune squirt are spontaneously changing behaviour, asserting "you are so feature-rich, baby" to dates and inquiring of random passers-by whether they are "people-ready".

So many things wrong with slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

"So, if I read this right, Microsoft has patented making money from copyright infringement of someone else's work."

And which part does slashdot have a problem with? The copyright infringement? Or Microsoft getting the money?

Pays Microsoft a fee..

[nurb432]

Over my dead body... errr dead ipod.. errr cold dead fingers... you get the idea ...

Sounds bogus.

[Anonymous Coward]

"There's a difference between "want to support the artists" and "don't want to support the enablers while the artists get screwed", which is essentially happening here."

Ha! Politicians has their "think of the children" and slashdot has "think of the artist" with the same depth of feeling behind both. The people who "copyright infringe" don't give a damn about the artist, anymore than politicians give a damn about the children. You all want to support the artist? There's a list I could attach but we both know all I'll get is a bunch of excuses why you can't "support the artist".

Here's the first to start. See how you deal with that. Send the artist what they feel their art is worth ("But it's too much!" So much about "the artists". Gentlemen! Start your "out of the country so the law can't touch us" downloads!)

Re:Sounds good....

[podwich]

I've already paid for my music once. Why do you think I should pay again just to format/player shift it?

Re:Sounds good....

[deftcoder]

... and it would probably help your case *not* to use split infinitives! *rimshot*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive

Reselling makes stolen legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

We all have seen on the DVDs that copying movies, music is stealing.
We were also led to believe that reselling stolen stuff is a crime.
It looks like if you pay portion of the money coming from stolen music, movie then the transaction is kosher.
What the f...?

Retarded

[LookoutforChris]

I don't own any Microsoft products and I don't intend to. But I'd really worry if Apple ever did this. The article is kind of lite, but how do they tell the difference between songs you've ripped from CDs and songs you've got from P2P? This sounds like it could be a way to get people to pay again for stuff they've already bought.

in reality...

[erik umenhofer]

1) Find users for the Zune
2) ??????
3) Profit!!!!

once they figure out step 1, they are set!

Why would I EVER enable that?

[Anonymous Coward]

GJ ms no ones THAT dumb...

GPLv3?

[alexgieg]

Just out of curiosity: does someone know what are the legal ramifications of using a Zune to send a GPLv3 licensed MP3 to another Zune? Isn't the edited version a derivative work made by Microsoft? As a result, don't the anti-DRM and anti-patent clauses take effect, causing Microsoft to both auto-license their DRM technology as well as all the patents covering Zune? After all, I instructed the device to send a file, and it was Microsoft who, instead of doing as I instructed, choose to change it. Or at least, that's how it seems to me.

Re:GPLv3?

[jimicus]

Interesting idea. The GPL does offer a get out clause: "if you don't like the license, don't distribute the product" - perhaps they could add a "license" tag to MP3s?

And again a slashdot submitter shows ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

> A new Wired magazine blog entry shows that Microsoft has patented

And, of course, the slashdot submitter gets the facts screwed up again. Microsoft has "patented" nothing yet. This is merely a "patent application". Meaning they have filed an application to get a patent. But they in no way have any patent as of yet.

So many things downloadable with this.

[Anonymous Coward]

"As the owner of a copyrighted work, I would be more than a little upset that someone else had decided for what price and in what way I was going to sell my work. 'cause, you know, that's not legal."

Don't worry, no one will ever do that!

A very Giant one

[bojan tesanovic]

few years ago we were sheep shepards at vast grasslands, we were natures people .. and now we are becoming glued to the laptops phisicaly and mentaly. .... can you get step back in time and try to understand this sentence "Share MP3s via wierless - Bluetooth and get Microsoft pay you for the song that you did not make it only if you got it from piratebay "

Re:Limited Impact. Predictable.

[PMBjornerud]

What if RIAA member companies are thus pressured into not selling to iTunes? (and only to MS and their protected player). What if this is part of MS's attempt at monopoly via patent with the RIAA wholly endorsing them in a way that will cripple the rest of the online music industry? This is silly.

Every single iPod ownder would be royally pissed. iTunes would premote idie music, as there would be nothing else. RIAA online music sales would disappear completely and piracy would surge.

Won't happen.

Re:Zune

[DECS]

Despite all the flowery language, its still a matter of Microsoft using the Zune to advertise its music store. You squirt an ad (trial song) to your friends, and then they go and buy it.

The only thing "new" is that, having failed to garner any interest in squirting, Microsoft is now planning to pay squirters a commission on sales. All the talk about "converting piracy" is bullshit. It's a program to tie a bone around the Zune music store so somebody will want to play with it.

How is this different than existing affiliate programs? I squirted some iTunes affiliate ads on my website, and when readers decide to click on them and buy something from iTunes, I get a small commission. How is this patentable? Because Microsoft described it it effusive language that presents advertising its store as a pirate magic trick? Is there something novel about sending files over a wireless network? I'm happy with Microsoft patenting the whole "squirt and die" model, as I don't want anyone else adopting it, but come on, what's novel about affiliate advertising?

Universal vs Apple in the iTunes Store Contracts
When reports surfaced that Universal Music Group, the world's largest music label, refused to resign its existing deal with Apple's iTunes Store, there were private schadenfreude celebrations held in many closets.

Correction:

[Bieeanda]

The RIAA is of the mindset that if a performer is playing his guitar at a crowded corner in a busy street, everyone who hears his music should drop a coin in his hat.

Given that there is an organization that collects money for artists that aren't even part of that organization, it might be more accurate to say that the RIAA wants you to drop a coin in their hat. That, right there, is my big concern about this-- I doubt that the expiration-wrapper code would have any sort of discrimination built in, or consideration for it being bolted on, and so perfectly legitimate, free-to-copy MP3s (or other files, because you know this is just the tip of the shitberg) will end up self-terminating as well.

Nice troll

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the mods missed this part:

Because of this, they can put up with iPod's lame sharing capability

Ah, karma. Get it while the gettin's good!

Re:Sounds good....

[dwarfsoft]

Over time I have become used to hearing their Logon/Logof Chimes. It is only fair that I repay the Microsoft Artists for their hard work.

Wow, innovation actually exists, sorta

[BloodyIron]

Is it just me, or is microsoft trying out with many different ways to make money for big business, but in both good and bad ways?

imo, giving a bit back to those who trade music if the person you trade to buys the song is in the best interest of everyone, both those who pirate, as well as the artist.

if I were paid even a little bit for recommending an album, or a song to someone, that they bought, I would be motivated to share music so much more.

This seems to bridge the gap between the concept of sharing music because its good to share, and the ability to make money. Plays 3 times before expiring? Okay, not exactly what I want, but this incentive to share by getting something back if they buy the item, is a winner.

Maybe I'm thinking about this too much

[Titoxd]

Ok, if I need to pay Microsoft to play a recording, and Microsoft gives a portion of its profits to the artist/RIAA/affiliate... does it mean that my copy of the recording is now legal? After all, I'm paying for the usage rights for that file to its "owner".

Also, isn't there something in the US Code against profiting from illegal goods? You could make an argument that pirated music is an illegal good, so Microsoft could be opening a huge can of worms against itself. Just imagine: RIAA v. Microsoft in a court one of these days...

~~~~

Re:Zune

[dryeo]

What about if you live in a country where peer to peer file sharing is perfectly legal? Seems MS is taking a legal act and making out that it is illegal and profiting from it.
Not all countries (yet) are as unfree as the US of A. And the rest of the world really doesn't need American morality pushed on us.

Re:Limited Impact. Predictable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most every windows user is pissed, didn't stop Vista from coming out. Also, even if apple were powerful enough to change the minds of iPod users, you don't realise just how deep the MAFIAAs' heads are buried in the sand. They still seem to thing that piracy can be combatted head on, a-la wack-a-mole style. If this is the case, the MAFIAA would believe that their product (or is it a service? Who knows?) is so good that people will bend to their whims (which some may, but it would also force many fence-sitters into the pirate camp).

Re:Sounds good....

[fr4nk]

I think Clippy makes awesome music!

Re:Limited Impact. Predictable.

[Ravnen]

It isn't necessarily a black and white situation. If Microsoft are seen to be more friendly to the media firms than Apple, the media firms might be willing to offer lower prices to Microsoft, or preferential access to new releases, etc.

Most media firms probably wouldn't be stupid enough to stop supporting iTunes all at once, but less favourable licensing arrangements could put Apple at a disadvantage over time. If this were to happen (and I am not in any way suggesting that I think it will), the media firms could simply wait for the iPod's market share to fall below the critical tipping point, and then start ratcheting up the pressure on Apple.

Re:Sounds good....

[nadia2004]

Oh man... The whole anti-piracy thing is getting more and more ridiculous by the day. I totally agree with you, Tuoqui.

prior art available, find something better

[freaker_TuC]

1963 called, they want their patent back.

Re:prior art available, find something better

[iminplaya]

BAH! Prior art isn't stopping anybody else. As the old saying goes, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." I suppose I should've added "with a computer".

Re:Sounds good....

[haakondahl]

Not at all.

The split infinitive rule is a holdover from tarting up English with Latin grammar in order to make the Vulgate seem less vulgar. In Latin, it is impossible to split an infinitive, therefore it was deemed impolite to do so. So this is a fairly soft rule of grammar, and one which you may freely disregard, if it makes your writing more readable. Using the wrong homophone, on the other hand, will get you a fatwa.

...to *boldly* rimshot

Re:Zune

[r3m0t]

How is that not DRM?

"technologies used by publishers or copyright holders to control access to or usage of digital data or hardware, as well as to restrictions associated with specific instances of digital works or devices. The term is often confused with copy protection and technical protection measures, which refer to specific technologies that control or restrict the use and access of digital content on electronic devices. Such technologies act as components of a full-blown DRM design." [the wiki]

Is it copy protection? Yes, you can't copy it on like you would copy on (squirt) a track from your own library.

Is it used to usage of digital data? Yes, you can only hear it three times.

Whether the file is technically changed to a DRM format on the disk is irrelevant. The point is, the file is irretrievable.

Microsoft gets a cut? Always?

[PPH]

Lets say that I have published some content (music) and have a preexisting contract with BMI/ASCAP or whomever to collect royalties. Where does this article say that Microsoft's proposed charges will apply only to copyright holders or their agents who have contracted for this service?

I can see a clear case of Microsoft interfering in business relationships between other parties here.

Whoops.

[Ayanami Rei]

I accidentally said an unkind word against Apple. Go ahead slashdot, crucify me.

And yes, I fucking hate Apple. Screw them. Screw Steve Jobs and his stupid sweaters.

How to solve the problem. Seriously.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. All music and movie companies get together and create a mega-website / P2P torrent site with ALL the music and movies ever made.

2. Allow anybody to download as much as they want, for free.

3. Monitor the downloads and send an audited report to the Government.

4. Government pays copyright holders an amount (say 10c per song) from tax money. (And of course those payments are income and therefore taxable)

5. Everybody happy.

Think about it for a second. This will also weed out the bad stuff very quickly. I am sure some tax accountant can do the calculations, but there should not be a need for any increase in taxes -- at 10c a song per person, what would YOUR impact be?

We need a new model for the digital age. This will work.

Yeh, and who gets the money?

[bandmassa]

I've said this before, but as an indie artist who gives away tracks to encourage audiences to buy others, the day I discover one of my free tracks with Microsoft DRM on it is the day Microsoft will rue. Same for Apple, or any agent undertaking this automatically.

No agency has the right to implement a device that, through automation, restricts rights on my IP that I expressly don't restrict. I don't care if they hand me every red cent of the cash raised, if I put a song out there free, I want it to be free, not restricted.

Their arses will be grass to my lawnmower, and I'll share the proceeds of any suit equally with anybody who sends me a zune DRM encrypted copy of one of my songs. I respect the right of any artist to reserve rights, but my rights are main to NOT reserve, not Microsofts to unilaterally reserve for me, the bastards.

Re:Zune

[Grizzlysmit]

"another Zune user's legal squirt onto you"

shouldn't that be The Zune user.

Funny Picture.

[twitter]

Zunenberg.

Re:Sounds good....

[Technician]

In my case, it arises from wanting to have my media (music, movies, TV shows, whatever) work on open source software, and without stupid restrictions. Note how people who actually buy DVDs are FORCED (yes, FORCED -- they tend to disable the fastforward/skip features) to watch anti-piracy bullshit, while the actual pirates that it's targeted at can either skip over or slice out the parts they don't like?

Try a DVD player which is not approved by the DVD consortium such as Totem Media Player with the DVD Lib installed. It's a DVD player that does what all DVD players should do out of the box... Play the DVD. If I want the extras and menu, I can go to them later, but putting in a movie plays the movie.. What a concept. It's the biggest reason I use AcidRip. I put the DVD's in a box where they won't get lost, scratched, broken, mis-filed, etc. Movies are now click to play on the media center.

Re:Sounds good....

[SanityInAnarchy]

Actually, I do. The trouble is, it's already breaking the law to do that (DMCA), and generally, enabling this kind of functionality on my Linux trivially gives me the ability to rip them.

The point I'm making is that there are legitimate hassles to being a good little consumer.

Re:Sounds good....

[Technician]

The trouble is, it's already breaking the law to do that (DMCA),

Unfortunately they are locking 2 laws against each other.. One is the copyright laws, but they tend to be trumped many times by the laws of economics. As an example.. CD's have pretty much started to adopt copy protection. The music sellers seem to think the only thing a CD should be played on is a CD player. Those with iPods and such have problems with copy protection. The result is less CD's are purchased.

DVD's face the same problem. Between Video iPods, the Zen Video, and the Kalidascope video media center, broken DVD's are a problem. Fewer of them sell.

SONY recently got a balck eye for both the XCP copy protection and root kit and got burned with copy protected DVD's. You can say don't copy to your device all you want. The response is "If it doesn't work, I won't buy it!". I think the high prices and the extra copy protection on HD DVD's of both flavors will keep them as a novelty item for some time much like the DAT, SACD and other DRM experiments that never made wide acceptance.