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."

Comments

Fixed/Correct link to original article

[FrozenFrog]

Seems the link in the article is incorrect (or has changed). Correct link is: MS to nuke music DRM

Re:DRM

[nine-times]

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.

Re:Why is this news? Because it's Microsoft.

[sonofusion82]

I don't see why this is really big news. In fact, this really has got _nothing_ to do with DRM per se. For those who can't see the forest for the trees: * Company X makes product Y and sells to the public * Company X does not make enough profit selling product Y and decides to discontinue selling it * Company X decides to stop supporting product Y (e.g. by making spare parts etc) How is this any different than, say, Ford discontinuing its Aerostar minivan line? No, it is not about M$. It is about DRM. For most cars, even after the manufacturer discontinued the car, we can still repair the car and keep it going for years even with 3rd party or 2nd grade spare parts. But with DRM it is more like, after Ford discontinuing its Aerostar minivan line, the car engine will never start again after another driver tries to drive it.

Re:Internet Archive.

[iggy_mon]

The worst thing to do to greedy RIAA asshats is to share really free music. There's more high quality music at that one site than you can listen to over the next 100 years.

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.

Re:Internet Archive.

[willyhill]

He posts at -1 for trolling. Now that he is at negative karma, he organizes shill sessions with his seven accounts to game the moderation system.

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.

Re:don't worry...

[ricree]

They would still be able to get you for seeding it to others.

Re:suppositories

[urcreepyneighbor]

MS has stated that they would release a patch that would permanently disable XP's activation requirements when final support ends. Define "final".

Will Microsoft shut off product activation for XP after June? No, that would be crazy. While no one has said this will happen, it's conceivable that Windows could shut down product activation for XP at some point. But that would only happen after XP reaches its end-of-support term (when all support plans expire). The good news for you: That happens on April 8, 2014, which should be plenty of time to get the kinks worked out of Vista-or switch to a Mac, Linux, or anything else. Bottom line: Your copy of XP will work, totally legally, for at least six more years.

Source: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/25252

There's no point in waiting until 2014. ;\

Re:Why is this news? Because it's Microsoft.

[enoz]

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.

Re:suppositories

[basscomm]

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.

That information used to be available here, but has mysteriously vanished from the revamped page. It's still on this international page, however.

Re:Since when does XP require authentication?

[rfunches]

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.

Re:even for M$.

[MojoStan]

It should only take 1-2 CDs for an iTunes user to burn his or her (on average) 20 purchased, DRM'ed tracks and be able to play them on any other machine. Not all DRM is created equal. Insightful? For chrissakes, RTFA:

• "Of course, MSN Music customers do have one other option: burning all of their music to audio CD and then re-ripping them back to the computer as MP3s, sans DRM. But that's a lossy, lousy solution."

Re:Since when does XP require authentication?

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Re:Unlikely.

[clang_jangle]

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.