Microsoft Brings Back DRM

Barence writes "Microsoft yesterday unveiled its MSN Mobile Music service — and a surprise return to digital rights management (DRM). While companies such as Apple and Amazon have finally moved to music download services free of copy protection, MSN Mobile locks tracks to the mobile handset they are downloaded to. It also charges more than the other services per track, and offers no way to transfer your tracks to your new phone when you upgrade. The company's Head of Mobile UK spoke to PC Pro about the launch, but his answers are almost as baffling as the service itself. Best quote: Q: 'If I buy these songs on your service — and they're locked to my phone — what happens when I upgrade my phone in six months' time?' A: 'Well, I think you know the answer to that.'"

Comments

Clueless

[alain94040]

So many great quotes from a certain Hugh Griffiths, Head of Mobile at Microsoft UK:

We'll be looking to enhance the service if we get some interest from consumers

PR101: Don't tell journalists that no one cares about your product.

At the moment we don't have the functionality in-house to provide a mechanism for transferring between mobile phones and PC

CS101: Microsoft doesn't have the technology in-house to do a simple file transfer?

I didn't realise phones were churning that quickly in the marketplace these days

How clueless can you be? This guy almost makes me feel good about the other news of the day (Microsoft to laying off 5,000).

I suspect a Microsoft conspiracy to reassure their shareholders that indeed, getting rid of deadwood will not hurt business, on the contrary! He is a living proof (assuming he is one of the "chosen").

--
FairSoftware.net -- where geeks are their own boss

Re:Clueless

[Chyeld]

Actually I read it as more arrogant than clueless, or perhaps hostile would be the word. He definately didn't defend as much as say "Yeah, we don't care" to most of the questions.

Re:Clueless

[m509272]

They mistakenly missed this guy.....

Re:Clueless

[Jabbrwokk]

This dipshit probably has a golden parachute clause in his contract somewhere. They always do. Maybe he's the idiot nephew of someone high-up in Redmond, that's why he's with Microsoft Mobile UK, they sent him off where they thought he couldn't do any real harm. Woops.

Re:Clueless

[evilkasper]

I see this service being less popular than the Zune.

Re:Clueless

[_Sprocket_]

How clueless can you be? This guy almost makes me feel good about the other news of the day (Microsoft to laying off 5,000).

What you lack is perspective. You see, the whole time the individual was thinking "fuck you." But he managed to come up with different answers. See? There's a marked improvement if you understand all the variables in play.

Re:Clueless

[Midnight Thunder]

Good grief, someone needs to post a 24 hour guard by this guy, Ballmer is going to disappear his ass posthaste.

Well, you are making the assumption that this arrogance does not exist in the higher ranks. I personally feel that Microsoft is occupied by too many people out of touch with reality. Mind you there are departments that seem to slowly be seeing the light outside of their ivory tower, some of these including those working on IE8 and Microsoft office.

Re:Clueless

[A. B3ttik]

I personally read it more as
"We're just trying something new here. We don't have all the bugs worked out... we don't have all the questions answered, now quit pestering me."

Re:Clueless

[srealm]

Of course they have, it's called having a monopoly in a marketplace (or enough clout to bully providers into towing their line), and being in a country where the government doesn't have the balls to follow through on FINDING them to be a monopoly (well, at least the Bush administration).

In that position, it's easy to make money, bundle the shit together, make it the default, or pressure service providers to make it the only option.

Re:Clueless

[mrchaotica]

Even if that were the case, he was still a dumbass -- if you don't care, then don't give an interview!

Re:Clueless

[Endo13]

Well, maybe I'm way off but to me it came across mostly like this:

"We're doing this mainly so we can put a little checkmark in the box for 'includes MP3 download service'. We don't really care if it's profitable or not, or how well people like it, or even really whether they use it or not. It's one more thing we can add to the list of features, and that's all we really care about."

Re:Clueless

[aperion]

Or like the Radio on GTA IV

Announcer: "Costs more and you loose ALL RIGHTS! Mobile Music Service, Less bang, for more buck."

Re:Clueless

[calmofthestorm]

Some people go to community colleges for reasons other than "being idiots". Like, for example, saving money, staying near home, etc etc. Nor are they all terrible educational institutions, especially not for freshman and sophomore classes.

Careful with the elitism, it interferes with the meat of your message. Having taken classes both at community colleges and at a quite prestigious science school, I can tell you there is a difference in quality of instruction available, but it is dwarfed by the difference in the students who take advantage of their opportunities and those who do not.

Aside from that last line, I agree completely.

!surprise

[weirdcrashingnoises]

seriously, who is really surprised microsoft did this? sure other companies (itunes/amazon) got smart and are moving away from the DRMs, but it's not surprising at all to see MS stick with it.

Re:!surprise

[erroneus]

Lock-in has worked pretty well for Microsoft so far. They have no motivation to change strategies. They will have to suffer a near-death experience before they will actually pay attention to what the user wants and what the market is delivering.

Re:!surprise

[Myrv]

Lock-in has worked pretty well for Microsoft so far. They have no motivation to change strategies.

Problem is this isn't lock in. Not in the traditional sense at least. If they had said, "you can only transfer songs to another Microsoft enabled phone." That would be lock in. The user will want to keep buying Microsoft phones to keep their music. By nuking the music when you get rid of the phone there is no incentive to buy another Microsoft phone.

And yes, the person may be locked in to using a particular phone, but that doesn't work either because now the person isn't buying any new phones (with new Micrsoft OS licenses to go with them).

I guess you could argue that the phones OS is the lock-in factor and they are milking that. You want a MS phone? Be prepared to buy all your music again. But that is a dangerous strategy when there are plenty of healthy platforms still competing.

Another Bomb Here to Stay

[eldavojohn]

Apple and Amazon have finally moved to music download services free of copy protection

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that Amazon's music service has always been DRM free. Could you please point me to a source showing that their service was ever under DRM? Did they offer a music service before Amazon MP3?

I don't know why everyone got excited when Apple went DRM-free, I've been buying DRM free MP3 singles from Amazon for over a year.

I don't think Microsoft is alone in their cling-to-DRM mentality. I think this will bomb but does it really even matter? It's just going to be another Zune/XBox bomb all over again offset by their other divisions so it's here to stay whether the market & investors say it should be or not. Oh well, if they want to lose money, let 'em. It does take more work for me to put my MP3s on my phone, maybe joe consumer won't put up with that and live with the DRM? We'll see after an upgrade though ...

Re:Another Bomb Here to Stay

[eldavojohn]

Well if you want to pick nits, nobody explicitly said Amazon ever had DRM on their music download store. You could argue that Amazon has "moved to music download services free of copy protection" in that they moved into music download services, and those services don't use DRM.

Are you serious? That would be like if I was introduced to my friend's new girlfriend and I said "Hey, Al, I see Peter and you have moved to dating girls that don't have herpes!"

Oh, if anyone wanted to nitpick I could just say that I mean Al is now dating women and Peter is the one who used to date someone with herpes. Ridiculous. That sentence makes it sound like Amazon used to have DRM and they got smart and moved away from it. To my knowledge, they've always offered me DRM free MP3s. I don't even think you can have DRM on MP3s making Amazon MP3 DRM free!

Is it possible that you're just a bit touchy about people hyping Apple?

Is it possible that I have a personal bias against iTunes? Yes. Yes it is. No Linux support (Amazon runs fine on it), a bloated program that makes me install QuickTime, it reindexes, doesn't let me transfer songs on iPods, wastes CPU, installs a Windows Service, etc. I could go on for hours. And then a family member calls me wondering why her computer runs so damned slow and why she can't have 1000+ songs in iTunes.

iTunes is horrible in my opinion and it gets all the press and love and there are other options out there (like Amazon + Amarok). Yeah, sorry about the bitchy rant but you asked me about it.

Re:Another Bomb Here to Stay

[LWATCDR]

The 360 is only doing well because Microsoft actually has a very good product. Of course the did a lot of the ground work with the original XBox.
1. They have the best online system. Sony's is a bad joke and Nintendo's is very limited.
2. They made very good Developer tools.
3. They made a great game franchise "Halo"
4. Now they are embracing Netflix for movie downloads which is frankly brilliant and so not like Microsoft.
5. They now have the lowest entry point with the Arcade.
Even then they are in second place to Nintendo. Frankly the 360 beats the Wii in power, and online. The Wii is doing so well because of the controls and the great first party software from Nintendo.
If any thing Microsoft showed a large chunk of effort, humility, and innovation in the game console market.
The exact opposite of their standard business practices.

Re:Another Bomb Here to Stay

[feldicus]

So it's popular, has a reasonably good catalog of titles, and is a bomb because the manufacturer is operating at a loss? I'm pretty sure the fact that developers consider it a viable platform (due to the number owned) means that it's been pretty successful. There is an unusual disparity in that its success in the market (re: sales and title availability) has not equated to profit on the part of Microsoft, but that doesn't invalidate the platform itself.

feldicus

Re:Another Bomb Here to Stay

[nine-times]

Are you serious? That would be like if I was introduced to my friend's new girlfriend and I said "Hey, Al, I see Peter and you have moved to dating girls that don't have herpes!"

Maybe more like saying "eldavojohn, I hear you've moved to dating girls who don't have herpes!" and you replying, "I never dated women with herpes before! I've only dated men with herpes!" You'd have a valid objection there, but one could argue that my statement wasn't "misleading" so much as "ambiguous".

Yeah, sorry about the bitchy rant but you asked me about it.

Well... actually I didn't ask you whether you liked iTunes. I really only asked whether you might be touchy about Apple. But you know, it's fine. I can appreciate that you don't like iTunes. I wouldn't ask you to use it.

But I'll say it seems to me like some people are just very angry that people like Apple products, and will rant and rage, virtually unprompted, against Apple and all Apple products.

Re:Another Bomb Here to Stay

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

You assume that most people know or care what DRM is... they don't, not until it directly affects them. And even then, they're not going to be told "Well the DRM prevents you from transferring this stuff to your new phone". They'll instead hear "sorry, this is not compatible with your new phone".

And because their target audience seems to be people who are not aware that there isa non-microsoft choice (ie msn mobile users who will use whatever their phone comes with), competition doesn't help much.

Re:Another Bomb Here to Stay

[F'Nok]

My friends list on PSN is persistent, and used regularly on many games.
It's a single, automatic (if you leave default setting) sign-in. If games make their own accounts, that's the developer, and there are bad developers on EVERY platform.
WTF is "singularity in online requirements/standards" supposed to mean? A console IS a standard requirement, and both require a broadband connection to do much more than look at pretty web pages.

My PS3 patches in a couple minutes.

Xbox does not have an equivalent to @Home, which is actually a pretty cool feature on PSN.

PSN IS FREE.

I know Xbox Live was better at release, as PSN was very poor on release.
But the current Live vs PSN puts them at a similar level, but only one is free.

If you want to pay for a similar service, that's fine; but just because you paid doesn't make it better.

So...

[roc97007]

This is the kinder, gentler Microsoft we heard about just yesterday?

Even longer

[SuperKendall]

I don't know why everyone got excited when Apple went DRM-free, I've been buying DRM free MP3 singles from Amazon for over a year.

Well since Apple was actually selling DRM free music from major labels with iTunes Plus even BEFORE the Amazon store opened, I agree with your surprise.

When EMI finally broke the stranglehold on DRM by agreeing to a DRM free iTunes presence, the other studios decided to try and break Apple by agreeing to all be in the Amazon store. It didn't really work out for them but eventually it worked out for the rest of us, in a way that companies like eMusic had not managed prior.

I don't think Microsoft is alone in their cling-to-DRM mentality.

The real question is, how much are labels still clinging to DRM? They are the only ones that really matter in the end. The agreement for all of them to sell DRM free music in more than one store was a watershed moment, but is this weird Microsoft arrangement something that had already been in the works or is it some new backsliding?

Re:Even longer

[mcgrew]

The real question is, how much are labels still clinging to DRM?

I, for one, hope they stick with Dumb Restrictions on Media. DRM is a sick joke, and DRM music can do nothing but doom them further.

The RIAA labels are no longer needed by anybody. Twenty years ago the price of the tech was so high the artists NEEDED a label. Now every bar band in the country has a CD, and there are a lot of very good ones.

When we are free of RIAA labels and they and the RIAA are dead, the independant bands and labels will get a chance to get radio airplay.

For every RIAA CD there are 100 indie CDs. For every RIAA hit there are 100 excellent indie tunes you never heard. I, for one, want the indies to get airplay, and it won't happen until the buggy whip manufacturers are dead and gone.

Premises don't support their conclusion

[causality]

While companies such as Apple and Amazon have finally moved to music download services free of copy protection, MSN Mobile locks tracks to the mobile handset they are downloaded to. It also charges more than the other services per track, and offers no way to transfer your tracks to your new phone when you upgrade.

This is why it contradicts itself. If [A] piracy is a problem (represents lost sales, etc.) and [B] DRM is the correct response to this problem, then it does not follow that a system using a rather strict form of DRM would charge more per track. If anything, this should make their prices cheaper, especially considering that the non-transferrability would cause some repeat purchases with no additional expenses incurred by the seller.

The company's Head of Mobile UK spoke to PC Pro about the launch, but his answers are almost as baffling as the service itself. Best quote: Q: "If I buy these songs on your service â" and they're locked to my phone â" what happens when I upgrade my phone in six months' time?" A: "Well, I think you know the answer to that.""

He is being unusually honest about this, although I don't think that's courage on his part but rather a reliance on the apathy of the average customer.

Re:Hilarious...

[rudy_wayne]

"This guy's answers are hilarious. They only make sense in a universe where everything is inherently locked down, and your customers are idiots to be abused."

The whole thing is incredibly stupid, but, that's the beauty of a free society. Everyone is free to be incredibly stupid but you can just ignore it. The real questions to be asked are:

1. Why are you downloading songs to your cell phone?
B. Why are you buying them from Microsoft?

Re:It's sad to think of those affected

[je ne sais quoi]

That's a good point and I think you're right, in some of the more reasonable states there's a "fitness of purpose" or "merchantability" lemon rule for cars. Also, we can return a bad or just badly made toaster to the store if we want to. Why don't we have such things as an implied merchantability or a right of return for software? The EULA comes to mind as one obstacle, since often they say that there is no suitability or fitness of purpose when it comes to software. Meh... maybe what we need is some government oversight into computing practices that would ban EULAs, but this would require a congress and administration that stops viewing the protection of corporate profits as its primary goal and protection of the consumers as secondary. Where's Ralph Nader when you need him?