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

[_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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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:!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.

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.