Yahoo Offers Compensation For Unplayable Music

DrEnter writes "According to this article, Yahoo will offer some compensation after they turn off their DRM servers and Yahoo Music customers will no longer be able to access their music. The company said Wednesday it is offering coupons on request for people to buy songs again through Yahoo's new partner, RealNetworks Inc.'s Rhapsody. Those songs will be in the MP3 format, free of copy protection. Refunds are available for users who 'have serious problems with this arrangement,' Yahoo said. Nice to see them step up and do something, especially without trading one DRM scheme for another."

Comments

Real player

[SoupGuru]

How much would they have to pay you to interact with the company that makes Real Player?

Re:Real player

[socsoc]

How is this offtopic? Experiences with Real Player were so unsatisfactory that many people I know won't use ever use a RealNetworks product. *buffering*

Re:Real player

[Max Littlemore]

Do they pay you for the effort of having to repurchase the same songs? I wasn't silly enough to buy this DRM ladened shite, but if I was, I would insist that they not only offer me vouchers to buy the same songs, but that they also compensate me for my time in repurchasing the same songs. Or did they warn people that they would have to do maintenance on their music collections?

Re:Real player

[hax0r_this]

As shitty as Real Player is, Real Networks isn't such a bad company. Their Helix media framework is mostly open source, and they gave $500,000 to the OSU Open Source Lab a few years back for their work in using it on the OLPC project.

Re:Real player

[Anonymous Coward]

Not enough, apparently.

Re:Real player

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

How is this offtopic? Experiences with Real Player were so unsatisfactory that many people I know won't use ever use a RealNetworks product.

Perhaps it's off-topic because, as even the summary points out, the alternative being offered is in unprotected MP3 format: hardly a proprietary RealNetworks product, nor likely to suffer from the same problems that plagued early versions of RealPlayer. One man's joke is another man's unconstructive and irrelevant cheap shot; YMMV.

Re:Real player

[Anonymous Coward]

100 billion dollars!!!

Useing real player/jukebox in this day and age is like useing netscape navigator...
They were crap when they first came out and they have only gotten worse...

Re:Real player

[Lisandro]

Ahhh, those lovely '90s memories...

Re:Real player

[Aadomm]

Its not offtopic and you are wrong. The issue is not with 'early versions of RealPlayer' the issue is with the horrific and unnecessary baggage which traditionally comes with any RealPlayer install to date. If you don't understand then go and educate yourself.

Re:Real player

[daemonburrito]

That's probably still not enough to overcome the bad blood with users who interacted with the malware known as RealPlayer, and their pushing of the privacy envelope.

I remember a tech support call around 2000, where their representative tried to hard-sell an acquaintance of mine into buying customer data from them. It was like a street corner hustle.

Re:Real player

[Anonymous Coward]

Rhapsody, the music service by the guys that make Real Player, uses MP3s for their music format. Surprisingly, they even screw this up. The music available on all major competing music services (Amazon, iTunes, etc) sounds substantially better, even in the same format, than what is offered on Rhapsody. Now this is just my opinion. But I believe it as fact.

The quality difference is such that I wonder if they watermark the files with downloader's credit card information.

Re:Real player

[Benaiah]

except all the songs will be in .rm or .ra format and not work on any standard mp3 player. +they will charge you to buy real player pro or infect your computer with 1000 different kinds of spyware/adware to go with the ad supported version.

And if you try and convert these files to MP3 you will have violated the EULA and lawyers/FBI will automatically be sent to your house and your computer will explode and spew killer bees into your room.

Re:Real player

[KGIII]

Err... If your car is recalled due to a fault of the manufacturer do you expect them to pay for the time you took off of work to go get the part fixed?

I understand your idea but it is really quite unrealistic and I think if you insisted that they do so that they would likely just giggle at you.

Meh... I'd want to be compensated too. They're just not going to do it. You insisting that they would (had this happened to you) wouldn't actually get you much other than some entertaining emails.

Re:Real player

[_KiTA_]

How is this offtopic? Experiences with Real Player were so unsatisfactory that many people I know won't use ever use a RealNetworks product.

*buffering*

Perhaps because it's 5 year old FUD that doesn't apply anymore, ever since Real actually started doing good things -- like ignoring codecs that are probably violating their IP and supporting Open Source Media Initiatives.

Seriously. We get it. Real circa 1990 sucked. Real circa 2008 is actually a pretty good company. Hell, they even added a "download this stream" button to RealPlayer, in open defiance to the MPAA/RIAA. We should be CELEBRATING stuff like this, not attacking them for mistakes of their pas... *BUFFERING*

Re:Real player

[AmberBlackCat]

You know, I think the main reason for that "buffering" problem was broadband wasn't as common then. It got a lot better for me after I got access to high speed connections. Maybe the RealPlayer was just before its time.

Re:Real player

[operagost]

I'm sorry, I couldn't make out what you said because my RealPlayer was buffering.

Re:Real player

[Max Littlemore]

If my car was recalled due to a fault by the manufacturer, I would expect them to collect the car, provide an equivalent vehicle while the fault is remedied and then deliver the car. My time is valuable and anyone wanting my custom should respect that.

One might offer to use vouchers to download songs and send an invoice for time and materials with penalty clauses for late payment. Most companies don't like it when people don't accept their offers to resolve claims because it means they are exposed to risk. If you have a legitimate claim, you really can apply some leverage. Accepting their first and cheapest offer isn't all that smart.

They're C*nts, F*ck 'em!

Re:Real player

[socsoc]

You're right. In another ten years when MS releases their flavor of linux, I'll still be flogging Vista and you'll tell me that they started doing good things and that they made Enterprise/Gov see the light about FOSS.

Still doesn't change the fact that the company left a bad taste in many people's mouths... Can I interest you in some Enron stock, they're all about renewable resources now, I promise.

Re:Real player

[RobertM1968]

How is this offtopic? Experiences with Real Player were so unsatisfactory that many people I know won't use ever use a RealNetworks product. *buffering*

I really

*buffering*

dont

*buffering*

know what y

*buffering*

ou are ta

*buffering*

lking about...

Re:Real player

[onecheapgeek]

Well, you had better hope your car is never subject to a recall, because you are going to be SORELY disappointed when they tell you to bring it in between 9 and 5. If they have a courtesy car, you might get one that is vastly different than yours. Otherwise, it's a rental they've arranged on the cheap. Might even have a CD player.

Sure, you can try to make waves, but what is your alternative? You think there's gonna be a lawsuit over this? "You see, Your Honor, they HAVE to stay in business because my music is important. If they go out of business, I'll have to get the music from somewhere else. And that 2 hours is very important to me. So no, them offering to pay to replace my songs WITH FILES SANS DRM isn't enough. I want $80 an hour while I buy the replacements."

Re:Real player

[IHateEverybody]

How much would they have to pay you to interact with the company that makes Real Player?

A second coupon will be provided for a free clothespin that users can clip to their nose when dealing with Rhapsody.

Re:Real player

[shark72]

That's funny and all, but in case anybody takes you seriously... Rhapsody sells MP3 files now. Real, honest-to-goodness MP3 files; no killer bees required.

Re:Real player

[eWarz]

RealPlayer may be bad, but as a yahoo user who has recently migrated to rhapsody, I can tell you that Rhapsody is superior in every way and I've NEVER had a problem from them. They are WAY better than yahoo music. You can also listen to the music on linux/os-x for their subscription service thanks to the flashed based web player. I HATED real player, but rhapsody is nothing like it.

Re:Real player

[bigstrat2003]

You need to learn to get over it. The past is dead, it's in the past. The ONLY thing that matters is what the company is doing now, and plans to do in the future.

Re:Real player

[Jonny_eh]

"Now this is just my opinion. But I believe it as fact."

Well, which is it? Opinion or fact?

Re:Real player

[centuren]

Do they pay you for the effort of having to repurchase the same songs? I wasn't silly enough to buy this DRM ladened shite, but if I was, I would insist that they not only offer me vouchers to buy the same songs, but that they also compensate me for my time in repurchasing the same songs. Or did they warn people that they would have to do maintenance on their music collections?

I don't see that they have any obligation to compensate consumers for the effort. It's too far of a stretch to call false advertising. They were selling a digital download of a song. If I were silly enough to buy their DRM crippled product (your wording was better, I think), I would lament having made a bad purchase, and distrust any and all DRM.

I definitely sympathize with your sentiment, but barring public safety issues, it's not a company's responsibility to sell a quality product. The hope is that consumers learn what constitutes quality, and that company's learn that quality is the best business plan.

Unfortunately, consumers also buy experience, image, and convenience. This is why DRM is the model of success in the online music download world, thanks to the success of the iTunes Music store (another seller of a low-quality product, but wrapped in a slick user-experience).

Re:Real player

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't that long ago that they were spying on us, though. That's why I'm boycotting. Oh, and their UI looks like the entrance to a Tijuana strip club circa 2069.

Re:Real player

[Ash Vince]

Its not offtopic and you are wrong. The issue is not with 'early versions of RealPlayer' the issue is with the horrific and unnecessary baggage which traditionally comes with any RealPlayer install to date. If you don't understand then go and educate yourself.

Your comment about baggage with all RealPlayer installs only applies to Windows, they do a damn decent client for Linux that just installs a basic media player.

Re:Real player

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Its not offtopic and you are wrong. The issue is not with 'early versions of RealPlayer' the issue is with the horrific and unnecessary baggage which traditionally comes with any RealPlayer install to date. If you don't understand then go and educate yourself.

Speaking of educating people: Rhapsody doesn't use RealPlayer.

Re:Real player

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you have to install Rhapsody.

Re:Real player

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh huh, because they're totally spruiking for your custom when they issue a recall. It's nothing to do with, oh I don't know, saving themselves from a lawsuit by saving your (life/time/money). If you tried to play hardball with a recall on something that was potentially dangerous (read: car) and you crashed, who do you think the courts are going to side with - the company that did all that was legally required of them for a recall, or the guy who flatly refused to comply with a recall despite being aware of the danger? This is what they're doing here. Don't confuse a recall with a singular defective product which they've done nothing to remedy.

If you absolutely MUST be some kind of a rebel, then you have to realise your only leverage in these situations is threatening to take your business ELSEWHERE - but this does not apply to countering recalls.

Re:Real player

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget that this is a website where 45 year old losers congregate to moan about the injustices done to DR.DOS in 1992.

Re:Real player

[Aadomm]

Thanks, must admit i've never used their Linux client. Always seems I already have an app which can display the files on Linux so never found the need to do so.

Re:Real player

[Bert64]

They do it this way because the vast majority of people will just accept it...
Most people have quite a high threshold before they are willing to kick up a fuss and complain, so companies will target their first offer just below that threshold for the majority of users.

A few people will go to the trouble and complain, and usually end up with a better deal.

That said, this case is a lot better than the recent MSN case, where they are simply turning off the activation servers and completely screwing the customers. If anything, customers here will be *BETTER OFF* than they were before, since they will have the same music but in a more sensible format that they can keep indefinitely.

Re:Real player

[Bert64]

Windows realplayer was always garbage and laden with ads..
The linux clients didn't come with ads and worked a lot better... Real even went to the trouble of supporting exotic flavors of linux like linux/alpha and such, which very few other closed source apps do. Yes i would massively prefer an open source player, but real's linux support was about the best of any closed source, whatever their reasons were for not releasing the source.

Re:Real player

[Anonymous Coward]

Real circa 2008 is actually a pretty good company.

wikipedia quote:
"In 2006, Power Metal band Rhapsody had to change its name to Rhapsody of Fire after running into a trademark dispute with Rhapsody parent RealNetworks, which owned the Rhapsody trademark in the United States. The band Rhapsody had been around four years before the launch of the Rhapsody service."

Re:Real player

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had been a Yahoo! music customer, I would be pretty upset right now---even though Real is offering the files unencumbered.

Sure, this particular product might not have any awful crap attached to it, but I'd be supporting Real Networks. Only to the tune of whatever Yahoo! is compensating them, which is probably not much, but I'd rather not be responsible for Real earning a single dollar.

Re:Real player

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You are just as off-topic as the previous post I replied to. This has nothing to do with Real Player. Whatever your personal beef with that product might be, this is not the place to discuss it. The company Real Networks is involved, but we're talking about Rhapsody, which provides plain, ordinary MP3 files.

Re:Real player

[FireFury03]

If my car was recalled due to a fault by the manufacturer, I would expect them to collect the car, provide an equivalent vehicle while the fault is remedied and then deliver the car. My time is valuable and anyone wanting my custom should respect that.

And while they pick themselves up off the floor from laughing too hard, they will realise you've never had a car recalled before...

Re:Real player

[FireFury03]

They do it this way because the vast majority of people will just accept it...
Most people have quite a high threshold before they are willing to kick up a fuss and complain, so companies will target their first offer just below that threshold for the majority of users.

They don't _have_ to do anything - I can't see a reason why they would give you a better deal if you complain. If you were stupid enough to buy a licence to use some DRM'd media with no contractual guarantee that you would be able to use that media forever more, then it's your own problem - the vendor has no obligation to you.

Personally, I'm all for people getting screwed over as badly as possible with DRM since that's about the only way the DRM-buying public are going to work out that DRM is a Bad Thing and they should avoid it.

Re:Real player

[tehcyder]

their UI looks like the entrance to a Tijuana strip club circa 2069

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Re:Real player

[lilomar]

The problem with the buffering was that there was no way to stop and let it buffer. It would load up its pre-set buffer size, play that, stop, fill up its buffer again, play that, stop.....

Really got annoying.

Re:Real player

[mdwh2]

Indeed. The only worse player is Quicktime - same reason I won't ever use an Apple product.

Re:Real player

[FredFredrickson]

Same- I write the blog http://hackingym.blogspot.com/ and I've been following this transition closely. Rhapsody's service is far superior, including a much larger library, and more "radio" stations (channels). It's worth every penny. (Especially with the Squeezebox Duet that /. convinced me to buy)

Re:Real player

[The Warlock]

for as long as it takes you to download the MP3 versions of all the songs you had on Yahoo music. Then you get to uninstall Rhapsody.

Re:Real player

[skarphace]

You are just as off-topic as the previous post I replied to. This has nothing to do with Real Player. Whatever your personal beef with that product might be, this is not the place to discuss it. The company Real Networks is involved, but we're talking about Rhapsody, which provides plain, ordinary MP3 files.

Yes but you can easily judge a company by it's previous products. *cough* Windows

Re:Real player

[Anonymous Coward]

I slept with your mom. I promise I won't do it again.

Re:Real player

[Anonymous Coward]

Real player isn't so much crappy as it is intrusive (especially the Windows version - the Mac and Linux versions have generally been nicer).

Re:Real player

[Ceiynt]

I for one am one of those people who will never use realplayer, or just about anything by RealNetworks. The last experience I had with them was probably back before Napster was started. Realplayer would take over every aspect of media on your system, without asking. It would also install itself in your taskbar, toolbar, quick menu, and everywhere else for "ease of use", all without asking. It would also start-up with the system, and any attempts to disable it would cancel out with reboots. It was the most annoying piece of junk then, and has left a bad taste ever since. But alas, grandma's all over the world don't know any different, so just kept on downloading and using it(they didn't have a choice on use), thus RealPlayer would never go away. Thanks Yahoo, I'll take my refund now, if I had ever used your bloated service anyway. Mark as flamebait if you want, but I agree with OP, RealPlayer is junk.

Re:Real player

[rhyder128k]

Hey! I'm 32!

Re:Real player

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't FUD if it is (or was) true. Real shat on us all so hard, for so long, that a lot of us cringe at the idea of ever dealing with them again. They may be doing great things now, but it's going to take a long, long time for them to overcome the massively negative image that they cultivated for themselves in the 90s.

Re:Real player

[scot4875]

Might as well ask for a pony with that, while you're at it.

--Jeremy

Re:Real player

[tor528]

Yes but you can easily judge a company by it's previous products. *cough* Windows

That may be easy, but it's not always accurate *cough* Hyundai Motor Company

Re:Real player

[Ash Vince]

Which app? I find certain RealMedia files can only be played with the RealPlayer client.

Re:Real player

[shark72]

Well, for what it's worth, the Rhapsody MP3 store at mp3.rhapsody.com doesn't make use of RealPlayer or the Rhapsody software. There's an optional download manager which serves the same function as AmazonMP3's download manager, but it's pretty lightweight. It's a download manager... not a player or a DRM manager. It's purely optional... and if anybody still has a problem with this concept, remember that you have to install a download manager (ie. a BitTorrent client) to get your music by the method favored by most Slashdotters.

If you have a Mac, it's actually simpler as there's no Mac version of the Rhapsody download manager available. You have to download your MP3 files in ZIP format. Requires a bit of extra work to get them into your iTunes folder, but there's absolutely none nada zero software to download.

Re:Real player

[Anonymous Coward]

Mplayer. You have to get the codecs.

About Time

[Anonymous Coward]

But what they really should do is offer a unique ID, so that you can listen to it anywhere in the world, anytime you want.

Re:About Time

[LostCluster]

But what they really should do is offer a unique ID, so that you can listen to it anywhere in the world, anytime you want.

You really should take up one of the unlimited-for-a-monthly-fee plans if you want that. Bandwidth is a constant expense, so they're not going to make money selling you unlimited downloads for one-time payments, but most of the download services allow you to multiple devices signed in on their unlimited plans.

Re:About Time

[urcreepyneighbor]

Bandwidth is a constant expense

If you're a Yahoo! or Google, it's nominal.

Re:About Time

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to listen to a unique ID anywhere in the world, thanks.

Re:About Time

[Anonymous Coward]

I had Yahoo! Music Unlimited and it was a great service. This service was also transferred over to Rhapsody. (Yahoo users continue to pay $5.99 / mo using Rhapsody, where as Rhapsody typically charges $12.99 / month.) I actually like the subscription services. The Rhapsody music player is surprisingly nice and runs well. Plenty of music to choose from with over 4 million songs.

Re:About Time

[Bert64]

Yes, once you get big enough ISPs and other carriers will pay you for bandwidth to your content.
If your small, they will sell it to you.

Unexpected

[Itninja]

With so much 'stick it to the customer' activity from corporations in the past several years regarding digital music, it is indeed nice to see one of the big players actually offer this without being forced to by a lawsuit. It almost makes up for forcing me to get a Yahoo account to continue using Flickr. Almost.

Re:Unexpected

[nbert]

On the other hand they didn't have much choice. Imagine the loss of confidence they would have faced if they had proceeded as planned. I don't know anyone who has ever purchased music there, but I'm hoping that most of them will claim their DRM-less copy. There isn't a valid reason why we should give up rights we had in the days of physical copies - even the lower price is just a compensation for the lack of case and media we used to buy in stores...

Re:Unexpected

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, cannot wait for the first big scale internet apps to shut down. Imagine flick shutting down with all you pictures, or gmail taking away all you mail.

This is bound to occur, and will be a joy to watch.

Re:Unexpected

[assassinator42]

Microsoft seems to be getting away with shutting down the DRM servers for their MSN music store just fine. I think some people are even buying DRM'd music from their new Zune music store.
Perhaps we have Microsoft to thank for the current trend of music without DRM? I can't imagine retailers selling these DRM'd WMAs were too happy when Microsoft stabbed them in the back by creating a new DRM system that only worked with Zune. Well, I think they sell music that works on other players, but allow no one else to sell DRM'd music that works on the Zune.

Re:Unexpected

[Itninja]

I have no problem with either of those possibilities. Anything offered free shouldn't be considered stable. Now, if Flickr went south, and they didn't refund my annual 'pro' fee, that could be an issue.

Re:Unexpected

[IntlHarvester]

I, for one, cannot wait for the first big scale internet apps to shut down. Imagine flick shutting down with all you pictures, or gmail taking away all you mail.

This is bound to occur, and will be a joy to watch.

Your examples are so large that someone would buy them just for the userbase. Maintaining a bunch of servers is actually quite cheap.

The whole reason that Yahoo was able offer this is because hardly anyone used their music service in the first place.

Re:Unexpected

[Bert64]

Perhaps those people foolish enough to buy the new drm'd music need educating about how microsoft turned off their last drm service, thus cutting off all their customers, and there's nothing to stop them doing it to the current zune users.
It would make a good advertising campaign for one of the non drm music stores, but perhaps zune users are not a big enough market segment to make it worthwhile?

Re:Unexpected

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I just said that it will be a joy to watch, because a lot of people believe that those free services are stable...

Well...

[harryHenderson]

at least they are doing the stand up thing. However it would be better if it weren't opt-in.

Re:Well...

[iminplaya]

However it would be better if it weren't opt-in.

But how many years have we clamoring for exactly that? :/

Re:Well...

[thegnu]

it just means anybody who's bothered by it can get compensated for it. This is generally how companies offer refunds; they don't track down 100% of their customers to hand out stuff.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Oxen]

Good point. And furthermore, you should get that ID with a hard copy of your music, so you can download music if you break your hard copy.

Surprising

[EdIII]

I really am surprised that Yahoo stepped up like this. Really Surprised.

The offer to receive a DRM-free MP3 seems pretty darn reasonable to me. I wonder why Microsoft did not stand up and offer anything remotely as reasonable as this considering their size when they were going to shut down their DRM servers.

DRM has always been a less valuable product inherently, but Yahoo has backed up the customer and made sure they will be able to play the music they paid for.

I almost feel.... hopeful.

Good for Yahoo. They did the right thing.

Re:Surprising

[Optic7]

I wonder why Microsoft did not stand up and offer anything remotely as reasonable as this considering their size when they were going to shut down their DRM servers.

Probably because that would have been akin to an admission by Microsoft that their product (WMA with DRM) sucks and should be avoided.

Yahoo has nothing riding on WMA or on music file DRM so they could care less about the impression that this makes for WMA or for DRM in general. After all, they were (one of?) the first major music store trying to convince the major labels to offer non-DRM music files, and the first to offer a song from a major label artist on unprotected MP3 for sale, as an experiment a couple of years ago.

Re:Surprising

[Jurily]

DRM has always been a less valuable product inherently, but Yahoo has backed up the customer and made sure they will be able to play the music they paid for.

Indeed. Hopefully other companies will learn from this as well.

Re:Surprising

[EdIII]

I wonder why Microsoft did not stand up and offer anything remotely as reasonable as this considering their size when they were going to shut down their DRM servers.

Probably because that would have been akin to an admission by Microsoft that their product (WMA with DRM) sucks and should be avoided.

"akin to admission"??

Microsoft taking down the DRM servers and TOTALLY screwing their customers does not require an admission of guilt. It's a smoking gun. Bloody hands. Their spooge all over the crime scene, etc., etc., etc.

If Microsoft had stepped up and supported their customers rights to enjoy music they paid for, then it would of have been more like pleading guilty in an airtight homicide case where they had EVERYTHING on you.

I was mostly being facetious when writing that. I personally feel that Microsoft did not do the right thing simply because they could afford to not do the right thing. It was already abundantly clear at that time that DRM was going to fail. I think everybody knew it. DRM has now been a total failure with Music, and it will only be a matter of time before it fails with other media as well.

Microsoft probably came to pragmatic conclusion that everybody that is going to hate them, already hates them. Everybody that could go somewhere else, already is somewhere else. They would just wait for the lawsuit and settle it and that would still be pennies on the dollar for everybody they hurt.

That is WHY I am so surprised by Yahoo's actions here. Other than ethics, there really is nothing forcing them to do the right thing here. I gave up on good ethical companies existing a long time ago. At this point I am so cynical that I will just settle for a quality product without malware being installed on it in while being manufactured in China.

AND while I am having so much fun with this.. The act of Microsoft taking down it's DRM servers makes them so guilty beyond a reasonable doubt it would be like Michael Jackson getting caught for molesting little boys again. Except this time there is video footage.... with proper lighting... good angles.... and a MONEY SHOT :)

Re:Surprising

[mdmarkus]

Maybe Microsoft wants to buy Yahoo because they're tired of even them making them look bad? -- We are all little storms.

Re:Surprising

[maglor_83]

I wonder why Microsoft did not stand up and offer anything remotely as reasonable as this considering their size when they were going to shut down their DRM servers.

You do?!

Re:Surprising

[jimicus]

Microsoft taking down the DRM servers and TOTALLY screwing their customers does not require an admission of guilt. It's a smoking gun. Bloody hands. Their spooge all over the crime scene, etc., etc., etc.

This is Microsoft we're talking about. If you showed video footage of a board meeting in which every single executive explicitly agreed that WMA with DRM was never going to work and the only sane thing to do was cut their losses and shut down the DRM servers, they'd accept that the footage was genuine and still deny that there was anything wrong with their DRM.

Re:Surprising

[MojoStan]

Microsoft taking down the DRM servers and TOTALLY screwing their customers

If Microsoft had stepped up and supported their customers rights to enjoy music they paid for

The act of Microsoft taking down it's DRM servers makes them so guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

I know I'm late to this flamefest, but I think it's worth mentioning that MSN Music's DRM servers will be active until at least the end of 2011. However, I'd be surprised if Microsoft did a Yahoo! and gave customers free Zune Marketplace DRM-free MP3s at the end of 2011.

Re:Surprising

[EdIII]

Well I would not call it a flamefest. I think it's pretty friendly here, and I am not bashing Microsoft just because they are Microsoft.

I know that MSN Music's DRM servers are active till 2011. I was speaking more towards their intentions and position when they said they were going to shut it down. The enormously negative response caused Microsoft to back peddle a little and then commit to the 2011 deadline. However, during the time between the initial announcement and the public commitment to the 2011 deadline, they offered ZERO options for their customers other than, "sucks to be you".

Not the first time either. Most of the time there is a huge reaction to any EOL statement by Microsoft and they end up extending it somehow.

If Microsoft did actually do something like a free Zune Marketplace DRM-FREE MP3 I would be equally surprised.

Re:Surprising

[Geekbot]

I wonder. Does anyone have any insight as to the Real side of the deal. I'm trying to think of any advantage to Yahoo!.

Whereas Yahoo! is going to take a lot of negative publicity from a small group of people, existing media online outlets might take a serious hit due to lack of faith in the industry if Yahoo! had just said "screw 'em".

So I'm wondering if Yahoo! really did all that much on this deal or if it was well contributed to by Real who wanted to gain the customers and avoid a huge blow to the industry over lack of faith in the business model.

Duh... they had to.

[LostCluster]

"Company complies with rules to avoid chargebacks" should be the headline.

When you sell a perpetual license that needs to be reauthorized every so often, you have to either keep your license server up forever, or ofter to give customers all their money back.

We saw this happen when Google Video shut down. At first Google thought they could get away with giving out Google Checkout credits, but the credit card industry upheld chargebacks so they had to refund all credit card charges too.

Re:Duh... they had to.

[goaliemn]

They didn't sell a perpetual license, or at least it wasn't worded as such in the fine print. Much like Itunes, there, more than likely, is something in there covering them if they shut down the servers or if the DRM stops working for some reason. Itunes can shut your music off for almost any reason. I'm sure yahoo had similar wording in their agreement.

Re:Duh... they had to.

[rtechie]

Mod the parent up please.

As he said, Yahoo HAD to do this. Killing the license server violates their contract with the credit card company for "non-delivered goods". As far as Visa is concerned, breaking the tracks is the same as shipping an empty box. Most people don't grasp that chargebacks are a major money-maker for the credit card companies, and they'll typically bend over backwards to accommodate the customer because each one can net then between $50 and $500 for Visa/Mastercard/etc. Yes, some merchants really are billed $500 for each chargeback.

They would also face an inevitable class-action as pissed-off customers attempt to recover their losses.

Re:Duh... they had to.

[compro01]

Just because a contract says something doesn't mean it is legally valid.

Re:Duh... they had to.

[gd2shoe]

Agreed.

Every time a lawyer draws up a contract that is not legally binding, there should be some penalty to them. Perhaps a three-strikes style law is in order. If you have serious legal problems in three contracts that you've drawn up in the last decade, you should have your license to practice law revoked. The "legal" maneuvering done by many companies should be illegal, and not tolerated.

Re:Duh... they had to.

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time someone agrees to a contract they don't intend to honor (the customer in this case refusing to do without the music if Yahoo takes the server offline) there should be a penalty.

Re:Duh... they had to.

[afaik_ianal]

Much like Itunes, there, more than likely, is something in there covering them if they shut down the servers.

Not only are you not a lawyer, but you are also guessing at the contents of the license. How do you actually survive in the real world?

Re:Duh... they had to.

[Anonymous Coward]

actually it does. That's how contracts work

Re:Duh... they had to.

[devman]

...and just because you say something in a contract isn't valid doesn't make it so.

Re:Duh... they had to.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because a contract says something doesn't mean it is legally valid.

Actually by and large unless it breaks the law conditions on a contract are valid. There are exceptions and they tend to vary state to state and often involve reasonable expectation. Buying music tracks at a fair market price and being able to play them is a reasonable expectation. Ten or twenty years from now the argument could be made that normal media would have worn out but being tired of loosing money and taking your marbles and going home isn't actually legal. Most corporations set up smaller companies to take the fall when they get into a loosing proposition Yahoo had failed to do this. They wanted it under the Yahoo name so if it cost them a few million a year to maintain servers there's legal term for this, Tough. They arranged this deal to avoid having to maintain the servers because if the customers sued they'd win. In this case they have attempted to fulfill the terms with a legitimate alternative protecting themselves from a class action. Corporations actually can't say we don't want to play no more and still continue to do business. They can throw lawyers at it but they can loose big time.

Re:Duh... they had to.

[Bert64]

What about the MSN drm servers being shut down? They didn't do much to help their customers...

Re:Duh... they had to.

[Fujisawa Sensei]

What about Microsoft? They didn't do much to help their customers...

There I fixed it for you.

Re:Duh... they had to.

[loraksus]

It should be noted that Discover will only deal with chargebacks where the purchase was made in the last 6 months. Discover sucks ass in this regard.

One day

[Anonymous Coward]

itunes will have the same problem, they will return your money?... NO!!, they will sue you for try to circumvent the idiotic DRM.

Re:One day

[LostCluster]

Did you even read the summary? They're offering refunds to those who have problems with accepting the MP3 downloads.

Re:One day

[drcagn]

I didn't even RTFA and I still understood this:

Refunds are available for users who "have serious problems with this arrangement," Yahoo said.

yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

> Nice to see them step-up and do something, especially without trading one DRM scheme for another

They only did this after the internet cried bloody murder. Counts for nothing.

Now if only...

[Samantha Wright]

...we could get some compensation for all of the unlistenable music that has come out in recent years, then perhaps we could move on.

Re:Now if only...

[Reality Master 101]

...we could get some compensation for all of the unlistenable music that has come out in recent years, then perhaps we could move on.

Yeah, because clearly everyone who buys music these days only buys it because a gun is pointed at their head. It couldn't be that people actually *enjoy* it.

In other news, those damn kids are on your lawn and playing their crappy music too loud again.

Want DRM? Support it!

[corsec67]

A good change to the DMCA would be that if someone wants to sell something with DRM that they have to support it until the copyright expires, and then have an unencrypted version placed in escrow for when {the copyright expires, the company goes bankrupt, the company turns off the drm servers}.

Now the infinity+ copyright times seem excessive when it comes back on the music sellers.

Re:Want DRM? Support it!

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Absolutely. This is the only way I will buy anything with DRM ever again. Yahoo seems to be taking the gentlemen's approach. Which really just saves the the effort and money of the class action lawsuit I was preparing to file. This would have been a likely settlement outcome. Still, I'm not touching DRM with a ten foot pole anymore.

Re:Want DRM? Support it!

[ender81b]

That is such a good idea it'll never get implemented. Yowser though, that's a fantastic idea.

Re:Want DRM? Support it!

[hellwig]

I like the idea, but there is a problem with the reasoning. Copyright is an implied right. I don't have to put copyright notices on my works nor register them with some central governing agency. If i write a book or record a song, the copyright is implied. It is understood that I own the work. At the same time, it is my responsibility to police my work, and to seek legal compensation from people who violate my copyright. As such, DRM is not an extension of the copyright, it is the mechanism these companies use to protect the copyright. A song in MP3 format isn't copyright-free, the producer just realized they're causing more problems than they're solving by using DRM.

The only question becomes one of consumer protection (and unless you live in California you're screwed). Was their agreement with you worded such that you were right to assume that the song would be available to use at your discretion (i.e. without dependance on their DRM servers), or did they leave enough loopholes in to make it known that the song will only work in the presence of their DRM servers, and that those servers were not guaranteed to work past a certain point?

If they didn't properly cover their ass, and implied that the copy they sold you would work forever, then yes, I completely agree with your statement.

Re:Want DRM? Support it!

[mr_matticus]

I don't have to put copyright notices on my works nor register them with some central governing agency.

But if you want to sell DRM'd copies, you should supply a non-DRM'd copy to ensure that once the copyright expires, there is another version available. This has the benefit of ensuring a richer public domain (because many works simply disappear before the end of copyright).

However, the parent's suggestion is not without problems. First and foremost, where does the DRM-free copy go? The government isn't (and shouldn't) pay for a database of the files. You can't mandate that a business stay in operation. What would be the incentive for private industry to store files without sharing them for decades? Is most of the stuff we buy even worth anything when copyright expires?

On the last point, most of what is produced vanishes because it doesn't matter. It has no real significance, no staying power, and a century from now, nobody will even care about it. Thus, the inability to access DRM'd files is a non-issue for most of the consumer product. Products with the enduring popularity or cultural significance to survive copyright will almost certainly be maintained from the original in a useful manner (whereas a WMA from 2008 might be useless, low quality trash in 2100). Very little is available solely in DRM-wrapped formats; it's a consumer option for low price disposables. Contrary to the Slashdot conspiracy, no media industry is hoping for a pay-for-play setup being the only option. It might be the wet dream of a few greedy people, but as someone who works daily with content creators seeking to protect their interests and sell their work, that's the exception, not the rule.

Once the copyright expires, it doesn't matter whether you acquired it as a DRM'd file, a DRM-free file, or on CD. You can just delete the DRM'd file and acquire a then-modern-format, high quality copy wherever you like.

Was their agreement with you worded such that you were right to assume that the song would be available to use at your discretion (i.e. without dependance on their DRM servers), or did they leave enough loopholes in to make it known that the song will only work in the presence of their DRM servers, and that those servers were not guaranteed to work past a certain point?

This is a little backwards. Unless they made an explicit guarantee about future availability and compatibility, future prospects are just that: prospective. Supposition. A gamble. If technology, society, or any other element changes, rendering an investment worthless, you just lost. It's not any different anywhere else.

Re:Want DRM? Support it!

[Myrcutio]

If they simply sold you a periodic license to listen to a song, rather than selling you a song itself, they could legally take it away after a month and have no repercussions.

Plenty of people pay for video games every month without actually getting anything more than the right to access a server for a while.

Re:Want DRM? Support it!

[assassinator42]

Why shouldn't the government pay for a database of files? Say, at the Library of Congress? Or maybe it could be delegated to one of the other libraries/library systems in the United States.
Although, as you mention, this isn't really a problem for audio as most of it is available without DRM anyway. It seems software (including games) is much more likely to be released only with DRM, and thus should be a bigger concern.

Re:Want DRM? Support it!

[mr_matticus]

Municipal libraries are horribly underfunded as-is, and the Library of Congress archives works of significance, but does not retain all works submitted.

The cost of maintaining such a system, and its existence itself, falls outside of LoC's mandate and budget. It would be simultaneously dismissed by different groups as frivolous spending, an unnecessary archive of insignificant works, an extension of government control (by those conspiracy theorists who believe the government would withhold certain works), and a system perpetuating something they hate (by those who refuse to recognize eminently valid IP). A small, but powerful, segment of Big Business would also hate the idea, since there is no legal requirement that they prepare a DRM-free version. They lose the ability to enforce their exclusive rights after time, but that's not the same as forcing them to hand over the keys.

Taxpayers also have a tendency to kill things that are reasonable as a form of protest against the things they don't like paying for. Unfortunately, any given expenditure is going to have detractors, and so this is a major source of political gridlock and it tends to kill the relatively small potatoes. It's also the first target for budget cuts (just like the city library is one of the first services cut).

It is, for all intents and purposes, an idea too reasonable to be palatable. Such a requirement would require an Act of Congress and the president, without being eviscerated or overextended in the handling of that particular football. It also has questionable return on investment potential, since most of the content, software included, is of little to no value in the future, hence its commoditization in the present, so justifying its existence would mainly be for placation of a fraction of the anti-DRM crowd.

Re:Want DRM? Support it!

[Bert64]

Absolutely, i said something very similar before...

In order to get copyright on a work encumbered with any kind of copy prevention scheme, you must register a copy that is not encumbered with these restrictions with a government department (which is paid for by a tax on profits made from selling encumbered media).

You are then required to:

Make sure the product remains available at the lowest price you sold it for or less and under the same or better terms, not counting a government approved inflation rate (otherwise companies will just increase the price of things they don't want to sell to stupid levels to discourage sales)...
Ensure that any protection or activation scheme remains usable under the same or better terms, ie you can't change the online activation to one where you need to fill out 500 paper forms and hand deliver them to the company drm office at the top of mount everest.

And all this must be done for the duration of the copyright. Or alternatively you can give up your copyright, and release the unencumbered work into the public domain. The government will also make the corresponding copy available too.

Re:Want DRM? Support it!

[Richard_at_work]

The problem (if it is a problem?) is is that Copyright law does not state that you are entitled to a free and unrestricted copy of the item when copyright expires on it, it only states that the rights holder loses the entitlement to decide distribution of said item.

Put simply, the creator is under no obligation to ensure that you have access to anything after the copyright expires - as it should be. Copyright expiration does not prevent a copyright holder from continuing to distribute restricted copies - again, as it should be.

The onus in all cases is on you, yourself, to provide yourself with an unrestricted copy.

Re:Want DRM? Support it!

[Bert64]

Copyright sellers should have a responsibility to their customers...

If you sell a copyrighted work, you should be required to continue selling that work under the same terms, if that work is drm encumbered you should be required to continue support for that drm scheme until the copyright expires. Having something you bought and paid for stop working because the drm servers is turned off is even worse than not being able to buy something because the original vendor doesn't sell it anymore.

You should also be required to make it available to anyone under the same terms, none of this releasing in one country and another 6 months later at twice the price.

This is different to someone who isn't selling their work, either by not making it available at all, or giving it away for free.

Re:Want DRM? Support it!

[Bert64]

Those who make money from selling DRM encumbered products should be taxed on them, and the money used to set up such a database.
If you think such a tax is unfair, then you can always sell non encumbered files.

These companies already expect various governments to bend over backwards to enforce their copyrights, and they expect the customers to simply accept situations like "you cant play those files you bought anymore because the activation server has been turned off" and "you have to pay twice as much for that because you live in europe" not to mention "you cant have that because we don't sell it anymore"...

If companies want to shaft their customers like this, they should get no help from the government. Government help enforcing copyrights and such should be supplied on the basis that they give their customers a fair deal.

Re:Want DRM? Support it!

[Bert64]

Such a system should be paid for with a tax on companies which employ drm schemes...
They have a choice wether or not they implement drm schemes which hurt the consumer. They are perfectly free to give the customer a better non encumbered deal and thus not be taxed on it.

This is a problem created by those that choose to use drm schemes, therefore they are the ones that should pay to fix it.

Re:Want DRM? Support it!

[mr_matticus]

Those who make money from selling DRM encumbered products should be taxed on them

They already are.

If companies want to shaft their customers like this, they should get no help from the government.

They don't need help from the government. The consumers are quite willing to accept less to save (less than) a buck. It's why Walmart is so successful.

Government help enforcing copyrights and such should be supplied on the basis that they give their customers a fair deal.

It is a fair deal. It's not a good deal for certain groups of people. There's a difference.

Re:Want DRM? Support it!

[mr_matticus]

Precisely why the government should not bear the burden of setting up such a system, and, given the lack of incentive for the market to implement it on its own, why it will never happen.

Hooray.

[FlyingSquidStudios]

And there was much rejoicing from all 12 people who signed up for the service.

Re:Hooray.

[Tmack]

When asked about how soon after the servers are turned off users could expect their coupons, a Yahoo spokesperson said "the information is streaming in from Real, and we expec...Buffering...."

Re:Hooray.

[Yvan256]

t the coupons to be available sh... Buffering...

Negative Karma

[c0d3r]

Dang, there goes all that negative karma I was racking up every time I listened to Ice-T/Body Count's Cop Killer and Anything from 2Live Crew.

RealNetworks Inc.'s Rhapsody.

[ShadowGamers]

I thought we were supposed to be forgetting about that company?

Compensation for unplayable music?

[lena_10326]

Does that mean Ashley Simpson fans on Yahoo get a full refund?

Re:Compensation for unplayable music?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ashley Simpson fans get a free psychiatric evaluation ... I hope

Do they offer a complete library to choose from?

[gd2shoe]

Now wait.

Who said that they were being offered vouchers for the same songs? They implied it, but I don't see anyone saying that every song previously available with DRM be available from Real. The only thing they said is that the songs that are available from Real will be without DRM. There is a huge potential difference there.

Any affected customers want to tell us if they think they can have their entire library transfered over? Does anybody have a clue more than my cynical speculation?

Am I in the right place?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems I'm reading a story that is relatively positive combining (lack of) DRM, MP3, and corporate responsibility, so surely I must be lurking on moc.todhsals.www\\:ptth at the moment.

Good for Yahoo

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing we can know for sure is that if MS had purchased Yahoo already Yahoo would NOT now be offering money back or replacement music.

Why do I say that? Because of what ms ALREADY did when they shut down their drm music business.

This crap about Yahoo doing it because they "have to" is a bunch of bull. Yahoo could have waited until lawsuits were filed and then played games in court, BUT THEY DIDN'T. They lived up to their responsibilities like a decent corporate citizen. Saying they did this under duress is saying like saying man who doesn't beat his wife only refrains from doing so because there is a law prohibiting it.

Too bad MS can't act like Yahoo, but as we all know it's against their character to act in the public good.

Remove DRM

[adona1]

Is it not possible for Yahoo to release some sort of official DRM-removing software, along the lines of FairPlay? (disclaimer - never bought DRM music so is only vaguely aware of how it works)

Re:Remove DRM

[FLEB]

Without the license server up, you'd likely have to crack or backdoor the DRM somehow, which would end up being a blanket solution applicable to a wide range of other WMAs. I doubt any respectable player the size and stature of Yahoo! would do such a thing, and they might even be DMCA-liable if they did.

Re:Remove DRM

[Sloppy]

Is it not possible for Yahoo to release some sort of official DRM-removing software, along the lines of FairPlay?

Remember that Yahoo is not the copyright holder for this music, so their trafficking in a tool that circumvents a technological measure that limits access, would be a DMCA violation.

Elections in November, folks. Vote right, and we can repeal DMCA. What are your houserep and senator candidates' position on this? Don't know? Then you're not ready to vote.

Surprising anyone would think this is okay.

[jbn-o]

No they didn't do the right thing. The right thing is to offer DRM-free music in a variety of formats (lossless included) in the first place under a license that allows non-commercial and verbatim sharing. Their decision to sell DRM-riddled music wasn't an accident, it wasn't a mistake that they're now rectifying to make amends. They're offering this to not look so bad in the eyes of the non-critical listeners who are too timid to ask for not being screwed in the first place.

When Yahoo! says "But Davis said Yahoo opted to shut down its system to avoid "delaying the inevitable." keep in mind that it's these same proprietors who said DRM was inevitable and we had all just better get used to it. It's not working out for them and they're running from DRM like rats from a sinking ship. Don't let them forget that they were ready to sell your interests (in actually doing reasonable things with media you purchased) down the river.

Re:Surprising anyone would think this is okay.

[EdIII]

Yes they DID do the right thing.

With all due respect, you are complaining about the past. I agree with you about DRM and pretty much everything in your post, but you are still missing a very important FACT.

When Yahoo did have to shut down it's DRM servers, which is as you say the "inevitable", they have made arrangements that ALL of their customers get OPTIONS.

Those options are 1) Get a refund. 2) Get a DRM-FREE MP3 from another provider.

Now you are obviously upset that DRM existed in the first place. You question it's motivations and affect on the consumer's best interests. That's all fine and dandy. Let's just give credit where credit is due okay? Yahoo stepped up and made it right for their customers.

Now if you want to argue something, then please try explaining to me how giving coupons for DRM-FREE MP3's is NOT doing the right thing. That would be a productive argument.

Re:Surprising anyone would think this is okay.

[IntlHarvester]

No they didn't do the right thing. The right thing is to offer DRM-free music in a variety of formats (lossless included) in the first place under a license that allows non-commercial and verbatim sharing.

No, the right thing to do would be to kick you in the balls until you bleed to death. And my suggestion is more realistic than yours.

Re:Surprising anyone would think this is okay.

[jbn-o]

Clearly I should have been complaining about the future. A future where DRM renders your purchases obsolete because you don't really control what you own no matter what your computer-related skill or access to skilled software hackers. If you dare to try to control your own purchases laws are passed which render your work illegal to share or perhaps even own and use. So since you're so interested in productive argument, I certainly hope you're participating in activism to challenge these laws.

Complaining about the past has merit as that's how we learn not to repeat the bad things in the past.

As for what's wrong with MP3s: I'd rather get full-quality recordings like what I've bought in CD form.

I have yet to see the evidence that unambiguously distinguishes doing the right thing by the customer from cleaning up after a PR problem (as people invariably complain about when they learn their DRM'd files stop working; oh, but I forgot that purchase was made in the past and is therefore off-limits for complaining about).

Man....

[crhylove]

...That joke was so ripe for the picking. But I couldn't agree more. I think all Celine Dion purchasers should also get a hefty refund check.

Ease Back

[Mix Master Nixon]

Yeah they left a bad taste, but if they've cleaned up their act, why continue to kick them? Where's the incentive to do the right thing here? Real listened to what we wanted, acted on it, and took extra steps to antagonize **AA members with their download features. Cut them some damn slack.

Re:Do they offer a complete library to choose from

[RAMMS EIN]

``Any affected customers want to tell us if they think they can have their entire library transfered over?''

Have it transfered over? No. Rather, they'll have to download every single song all over again, manually, if they want to rebuild their collection. And that is only even possible if (1) the library the coupons give access to has all those songs and (2) the coupons are enough to pay for all that.

Alternatively, of course, they could pay out of their own pocket to download the songs from a different service. Or download them for free from various services. Or hope that someone will release some software that allows them to play the songs they already downloaded and paid for.

Warning!: Ice cream analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now this is just my opinion. But I believe it as fact."

Well, which is it? Opinion or fact?

I believe chocolate to have a better taste than vanilla. That is just my opinion. And I believe it is not a fact, but just an opinion. I also believe chocolate has better health benefits than vanilla. That is just my opinion. But I believe it as a fact.

What GP is saying is simple: I *know* this is an opinion (mine) but I *believe* it to be a fact too - much more likely true than false. To ask the same person "which is it?" is to have totally misconstrued the point.

Time to sue Microsoft!

[freedom_india]

Now that yahoo is offering "refunds" for withdrawing a license to a licensee, it is time to use this as a precedent and sue Microsoft for refunds.
No, am serious.
As per the license agreement, i agree to pay a fee per month for having access to the music.
As per the license agreement, microsoft agrees to keep the access "open".
If they violate the terms of a contract, then am entitled to compensation: in this case refund of license fees.