Slashdot Mirror
MSN Music DRM Servers Going Dark In September
PDQ Back writes to tell us about an email Microsoft sent to former customers of MSN Music today. The company said it would be turning off the DRM servers used to authorize playback of music purchased from the now-defunct MSN Music store. "'As of August 31, 2008, we will no longer be able to support the retrieval of license keys for the songs you purchased from MSN Music or the authorization of additional computers,' reads the e-mail. This doesn't just apply to the five different computers that PlaysForSure allows users to authorize, it also applies to operating systems on the same machine (users need to reauthorize a machine after they upgrade from Windows XP to Windows Vista, for example). Once September rolls around, users are committed to whatever five machines they may have authorized — along with whatever OS they are running."
Seems the link in the article is incorrect (or has changed). Correct link is: MS to nuke music DRM
But here's the thing: If Apple revoked all DRM tomorrow, you can still burn an audio CD of each of your DRM albums, and re-rip it in whatever format you like. So you're not ENTIRELY at Apple's mercy.
I agree it's not ideal, and I personally hate the scum that is DRM, but it's just worth mentioning that Apple does give you an out in this case.
Well, having used Vista for a couple of weks now, I would say not significantly.
My problems with Vista are the UAC, breaking EAX sound, shitty, SHITTY control panel layout, and in general UI speed.
I guess you could blame speed on somewhat on DRM, but that's really the least of my complaints.
Selling imaginary property is much different than selling goods.
Yes, this is a perfect example against those who would say, "DRM isn't a problem unless you're a pirate." I'm sure there were people who paid good money to buy audio tracks. Not rent, *buy*.
I know, I know, make whatever legalistic argument you want, but when people paid there money, they had an expectation that they were *buying* the music. Therefore, deactivating these servers is effectively stealing those people's property, much more so than "pirates" do. When I "pirate" downloads a music track, they haven't deprived the rightful owner of the use of that music. However, when Microsoft disables their servers, the rightful owners are deprived of their ability to listen to that music.
Of course I'd like to see DRM disappear. Short of that, companies should at least be required to offer the means to crack their DRM should they ever deactivate their servers.
A side question: can Microsoft really not afford to just keep these servers running? I guess they're having some problems with Vista being a flop and all, but how expensive can it be to maintain these servers? On the other hand, I don't particularly blame Microsoft for this situation. It's an inherent problem with DRM, and it was bound to happen to someone sooner or later.
i wonder why this comment is modded -1?
www.archive.org not only has DRM free live and studio music, but copyright expired movies, books, etc, etc etc. it's an amazing site and parent deserves to be modded up not down for making an interesting comment.
--iggy_mon - www.ananonymouskiller.com - Die Trying -
No the analogy breaks down because Ford doesn't come to your house and take your keys away when they stop producing that model of car.
"Sorry, we know we sold you that 2003 Mustang, but now that we've discontinued the Mustang, you'll need to give us your keys and turn over the car."
That's how DRM works, in this case. iTunes is a bit more forgiving. None is perfect, but Microsoft shutting off the servers is particularly egregious.
Anyone replying to any thread in which twitter is posting opens themselves up to be ganged by a gaggle of "people" who amazingly never cease to agree with each other and make the same grammar and spelling mistakes.
Unfortunately most moderators don't realize this and still mod him up.
The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
They would still be able to get you for seeding it to others.
Yes.
groupthink: It's good for self-esteem.
Source: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/25252
There's no point in waiting until 2014.
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
Can you possibly still not get it?
Your Minivan will continue to "work" after Ford closes it's DRM Factories, however if you decide to move house you cannot take your Minivan with you.
If you renovate your house, your Minivan will cease to work.
You can never sell your Minivan.
Serves you right for buying a DRM Minivan, I say.
That information used to be available here, but has mysteriously vanished from the revamped page. It's still on this international page, however.
http://crummysocks.com
If you have a "corporate" build of WinXP (e.g. 2600) it doesn't require activation. Retail builds do, and even "OEM"-style software I've downloaded through MSDNAA requires activation. Otherwise in 30 days, poof, your access to the OS is limited.
WGA will just lock you out of updates should your software, OS or otherwise, be "not genuine." I don't think anyone's had WGA disable the software yet.
Microsoft is still promoting PlaysForSure. "Same Compatibility Promise - Different Name".
What part of "false advertising" did you not understand.
Umm, actually the GP's analogy is much more accurate because MS isn't revoking the licenses that already exist on computers that are now licensed. Therefore, you can still use the files until the computer dies or until the car breaks down, which is what the GP's analogy indicates. Your analogy would indicate that no music could be accessed come September, and that's simply wrong.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
DRM is perhaps a necessary evil, as long as the major labels feel the need to compel anyone who sells their music to use it.
But, it's not as big of a deal as people make it out to be - the DRM can be circumvented by burning to and ripping from a CD.
"But, this reduces audio quality!" you say? I figure if you were that concerned about audio quality, you wouldn't be buying compressed music from MSN, iTunes, etc.
If you use online stores, regularly burn your songs onto CD and re-rip them - it's the only way to "back up" your music. I almost got burned when "URGE", that store that used to be the default in Windows Media Player closed down. They weren't as heartless as Microsoft - they transferred your licenses to Rhapsody, so in theory you could use the Rhapsody player to listen to your DRM'd music. Except that Rhapsody wouldn't install on any computer I tried. (But, it didn't matter anyway, hahahaha!)
I'm rambling, but moral of the story is: "Don't buy music." They're trying their best to make it anything but worthwhile.
DATABASE WOW WOW
Of course I'd like to see DRM disappear. Short of that, companies should at least be required to offer the means to crack their DRM should they ever deactivate their servers.
Oh they do. In the email sent out by Microsoft, it recommends burning your files to audio cd and (presumably) re-ripping them. Seriously.If you're dumb, surround yourself with smart people. If you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
No, Microsoft will not use activation as a tool to force people to upgrade. Activation is merely an anti-piracy tool, nothing else.
Microsoft will also support the activation of Windows XP throughout its life and will likely provide an update that turns activation off at the end of the product's lifecycle so users would no longer be required to activate the product.
You should be fair. I updated to OS X 10.5 without entering a key. Apple may have its flaws, but OS activation is not one (yet). That's probably why I haven't switched (yet).
Just callin' it like I see it.
I have a solution. The solution is available in packs of 100 for ten dollars. It is called.... CD-R. Just burn them and re-rip. ...Which is illegal in the UK. So if you're going to break the law you may as well just crack the DRM (which is easier and cheaper anyway).
http://blog.nexusuk.org
WGA will just lock you out of updates should your software, OS or otherwise, be "not genuine." I don't think anyone's had WGA disable the software yet.
WRONG! When the WGA servers for Vista borked, thousands of Vista installs claimed they weren't legit, and refused to show desktops to their users. People (and businesses) couldn't use the OS for which they paid an ass load of money. It took them DAYS to bring them back up, and MS said "oops, that wasn't supposed to happen".SP1 for Vista removed the big lock-down, something that probably burned them up inside, being that THIS would SOLVE PIRACY FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!! (by ruining the experience and annoying the hell out of paying customers)
Now that is false. Who cares about the "media"? It is just a transport mechanism. It does not matter if you buy a book written on paper, or on stone. What matters is the content.
I have heard your argument many times, "copyright is the only legal mechanism protecting the content... there are no contracts, there are no rights". Well that is just demonstrably false. Ownership is not ambiguous. As a term, a word, it is explicit.
Now if I did truly own the contents on a physical piece of media, such as a music CD, i could do whatever I wanted to with it. This is clearly not true. The only entities that can do that are the content providers, such as music labels and the artists directly. So my "ownership" is not tangible. I seem to have certain rights to it, but it is not my property. You seem to want to argue that I have actual ownership and control over property and that copyright law merely limits the actions I can perform with said property. That is not true, and reality does not hold it to be true either.
Why do we say, "Bob sold the movie and book rights to his story to some studio in Hollywood"? Bob OWNED the content first. He was granted ownership by a copyright. A copyright is, "The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work." What entity is doing the "granting"? Our government. A copyright is something that is granted to us by our government. It is something tangible, and something we can sell, or license. A copyright is also regarded as personal property. So a copyright is similar to the ownership of land. It is the government that is recognizing that we own the land, just as it recognizes that we own literary, music, dramatic, or artistic works.
So at no time, am I actually granted ownership of any part of an artists copyrighted work through my act of compensation in a typical music CD "sale". The artist produced a copy on a physical medium and then distributed to me. The artist did NOT SELL me any part of his copyright, but performed an act of distribution which is one of the rights that the artist is granted by the government. This act of distribution was compensated, and did effectively license the work to me. The term "license" is used in copyright law itself. Copyright law also protects that artist and then limits what I can and cannot do with the LICENSE. A piece of music is not like a piece of physical land. Only in VERY few places on the planet is new land being created. However, it is far easier for me to reproduce and then receive compensation for an artists copyrighted work. Copyrights exist to protect the content creators.
If anything, the effect of a copyright is to create a licensing agreement between the artist and the consumer, and is an agreement created by the government. This does not preclude an artist from creating new licensing contracts directly, but instead allows the artist to sell it and have certain licensing rights already in existence. Specifically, the exclusive right to reproduce of copy the work. Since copyright is clearly regarded as personal property, is it is perfectly reasonable to state that you can create contractual agreements regarding it, and that language is present in copyright law.
So when I say that there are contractual rights to music, and that people effectively "own" those rights only, I am referring to any licensing contracts that exist between the content creators
Actually Apple's Itunes already demanded DRM-free songs.
- One company acquiesced and now sells songs without restrictions.
- Another company said "screw you" and left Itunes.
So it will be interesting to see how all this turns out. In the end, I think it will be customer pressure that forces companies to either allow freedom, or else go bankrupt.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
With DRM infected files this is not so. If the 'seller' decides that you should no longer be able to play the files they can do so. Or demand that you pay them some more... again and again.
I don't question that business model though. I do however question those numbnuts that actually thinks this is OK. People that's actually fine with having to ask some distributor to play the files they have bought. People that's fine with a limited number of 'devices' they can play their music on etc etc. Well, I just don't get it I guess...
I was a plaintiff in a "successful" class action suit against a major telco. This is a company which continued to bill me for service every month for six months after I cancelled my subscription, after having overcharged me regularly and "slammed" me into services I did not order or authorize while I was legitimately subscribed. We were awarded an impressive amount of money after a two-year battle. Finally after the lawyers got paid and we all split the money I received the princely sum of $7.00 (yes, seven dollars U.S.). They are still pursuing collection against me for the months they were billing me after I had unsubscribed via a collection agency. I absolutely will not pay those bastards one more red cent as long as I live, so in four years that one goes away. That suit was "won" three years ago.
Caveat Utilitor
Yes, generally you own the copy as I said. DRM poses an interesting possible exception though. It comes with your copy, is not legally allowed to be removed, thus any restriction placed on it must be adhered to. The question is not "what rights do I have, considering I own it?", but "do I own it, considering the rights I have?"
Actually, the best question is "WTF is with the DMCA?"
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Corporate key do get expired, if you run updates. THis is from expierence. THe compagny gets a program to roll out taht updates they key. I gues the company key got leaked or something like that.
If you run some pc/laptop that is not connected to the compagny lan , and update it after a year or so, it ets a invalid key.
Only official way to solve this is to reinstall XP (well, rolling out fresh images is far less work for support than fixing things)
It's lossy because burning compressed music to CD does not magically make the quality improve to lossless WAV. Ripping it again to a lossy format then loses a bit more quality as the compressed music is re-compressed.
It's analogous to saving an image in JPG, taking a screenshot of the image (BMP), then saving as JPG again.