Slashdot Mirror
Kindle, Zune DRM Restrictions Coming Into Focus
It's not news that the media you buy for both Kindle and Zune are protected by DRM. Readers are sending in stories of some of the ramifications of that fact. First, Absentminded-Artist notes an account at Gear Diary recounting what an Amazon rep told one user about download limits on Kindle books. "One facet of the Kindle's DRM has reared an ugly head: download limitations. Upgraded your iPhone recently? Bought a new Kindle? You may not be able to reload your entire library. There's an unadvertised flag: 'You mean when you go to buy the book it doesn't say "this book can be downloaded this number of times" even though that limitation is there?' To which [the rep] replied, 'No, I'm very sorry it doesn't.'" Next, reader Rjak writes "DRM is a bad idea, poorly implemented. One of the many many valid reasons to drop Zune and its marketplace is the DRM validation error you see below. The vast majority of the music I had purchased last year is completely gone. There's no refund, the music doesn't exist on the service anymore, the files are just garbage now. Here's the error (screen capture): 'This item is no longer available at Zune Marketplace. Because of this, you can no longer play it or sync it with your Zune. There might be another iteration of it available in Zune Marketplace.'" Update: 06/23 00:28 GMT by KD : The Gear Diary blog has been updated with what may be more definitive information from Amazon on how the Kindle DRM behaves.
To those complaining. Do NOT buy DRM media.
Every time you pay for an item you support DRM.
And when things go awry, you come here complaining?!
Microsoft seems to be violating their own Zune EULA:
Microsoft may from time to time make available for download from the Services certain images, artwork, photographs, videos, and other content (the "Downloadable Content"). Microsoft hereby grants you a limited, non-transferable, nonexclusive license to download such content solely for your personal, noncommercial use in accordance with these Terms of Use. Such license shall be limited to the specific purpose for which such Downloadable Content was made available (e.g. for use as wallpaper or poster prints, as specified in connection with the download), and you may not modify, distribute, perform, transmit , create derivative works of or otherwise use such Downloadable Content or make any commercial or public use thereof. Downloadable Content shall only include content which Microsoft specifically identifies as being available for download, and you agree not to remove of obscure any copyright notice that appears in the Downloadable Content.
Note the words "Microsoft hereby grants you a limited, non-transferable, nonexclusive license to download such content solely for your personal, noncommercial use in accordance with these Terms of Use." Microsoft granted you a license. They didn't provide a provision which allows them to revoke that license. They don't have the option, once having sold you a license, to take it back. The FTC was out to lunch during the Bush Administration, but they're back in business.
So if you have a Zune, and it won't play something you paid for, go to the Federal Trade Commission online complaint page and start filling out the form.
The FTC was out to lunch during the Bush Administration years, but that's over. They're back in business.
Sorry, but it doesn't really (technically) work that way. When you buy the CD, you haven't bought any rights to anything. You've just bought the CD. According to copyright, you have no right to copy that CD. Fair use says that you can copy that CD, so long as it's copied in certain ways for for certain purposes.
Where this has gotten confusing is that when you "buy" a song online, what you've really bought it a license to copy that song under additional circumstances not normally granted under fair use. Of course, that license probably has terms in it that say the online store can revoke the license and deny you access to that song at any time for any reason.
For this reason, I think someone should really sue these companies for false advertising or deceptive practices (IANAL, so I don't know what you would technically sue them for). Companies using DRM shouldn't be allowed to advertise that they're "selling" music, and they shouldn't be permitted to use the word "buy". Instead of "buy", they should be forced to use words like "rent" or "license". And the terms of the license should be in simple language and displayed prominently, not just when you first install or run the software.
I pretty much agree. I don't see anything wrong with piracy against the very companies that bought the law that made it a crime. Buying the law was, itself, corruption, so they don't deserve ANY profits as a result of it.
OTOH, I consider it a reckless lifestyle choice. I'd prefer to just not purchase anything that supports DRM. So I don't. I've also stopped going to movies. I've also stopped buying music CDs. (Except from local bands without contracts with the RIAA or any member company.) And my software CDs are Linux & GPL (plus the occasional GPL compatibly licensed software). I made this choice before the DMCA was passed, though I'll admit that that reconfirmed my decision. (The Sonny-Bono copyright extension act was part of my reason. The rest came from reading the MS EULA for either Windows2000 or Office2000 at work. [My reaction to it was "This is a suicide note for any business that signs it!". The company lawyer's attitude was "No court will uphold this". He wouldn't realize that MS was capable of enforcing the EULA via technical measures, and that this was only to make their actions legal.])
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Amazon reps got in contact with the guy.... They simply don't a have a clue of what happens, and may try to change policy. Worth a read...
http://www.geardiary.com/2009/06/21/kindlegate-confusion-abounds-regarding-kindle-download-policy/#more-34458
Jamie Thomas just got fined $1.9M for having files on her computer that were never proven to be shared with anyone unauthorized (MediaSentry is a fully authorized download) and owned all the CD's of the songs in question. So just what did she purchase?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The hidden download limit is out and out fraud. They are not giving you what they lead you to believe they were. It's no different than putting 3 pints of product into a bottle marked as 2 quarts.
Neither copyright law nor fair use really cover the *playing* of a song or the *listening* to it.
This is true. Various "fair trade practices" laws cover the playing of the CD.
Every state in the US has some sort of "fitness of purpose" law about items sold that basically says that if something can't do the primary thing it was marketed as being able to do, then you are entitled to a refund or replacement at your choice . For example, if the car you bought won't run unless it is on the dealer's lot, then it clearly isn't fit for its primary purpose of "driving".
So, if an audio CD won't play music, then it's not fit for its primary purpose, and you can get a refund or replacement.
Personally, if I ran into one of these discs, I'd return it for a replacement, and I'd keep returning them until they were out of stock or finally just gave me my money back. Hopefully, with enough returns, the distribution company would get the picture and stop trying to sell defective products.