Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kindle, Zune DRM Restrictions Coming Into Focus

Posted by kdawson on from the lie-down-with-dogs dept.

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.

58 of 311 comments (clear)

  1. When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DRM has not been implemented correctly to date. While you might hope that your iTunes or Kindle--being a popular product--will have flawless DRM that will not inhibit you, this is simply not the case. It's always just a time bomb waiting to go off in your face.

    If you gotta buy digital books or music, don't fall for any DRM scheme. Here's an example that even the biggest digital retailers can't get it right. I await a flawless DRM that will work on multiple pieces of hardware--hardware that I choose! I fear I will be waiting for quite some time ...

    And please, I'm sick of responses to my posts with some snide remark that you don't have DRM and yours is free with a link to the Pirate Bay. It's getting old. I want to support the content providers but I don't want to give up or inhibit my rights to access that content.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Buy it once, use the pirated copy thereafter. After all you're purchasing a "license" and a "service" not a product, so all that matters is the license.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    2. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by Stormwatch · · Score: 5, Funny

      DRM has not been implemented correctly to date.

      The idea is almost zen. How to screw the user yet not screw the user?

      --
      Circumcision is child abuse.
    3. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by beelsebob · · Score: 5, Informative

      iTunes
      You mean that totally 100% DRM free music service?

    4. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you gotta buy digital books or music, don't fall for any DRM scheme. Here's an example that even the biggest digital retailers can't get it right. I await a flawless DRM that will work on multiple pieces of hardware--hardware that I choose! I fear I will be waiting for quite some time ...

      Collectively, we generally don't appreciate and value what you describe there. The minority who does is probably small enough to be marginalized, though it does appear to be growing. That's the reason why (at least in the USA) it's so difficult to use any cellphone with any carrier's network, or why the most widely-used office software doesn't actively try to produce documents in a format that any other office software can use. There are many other examples.

      And please, I'm sick of responses to my posts with some snide remark that you don't have DRM and yours is free with a link to the Pirate Bay. It's getting old. I want to support the content providers but I don't want to give up or inhibit my rights to access that content.

      Just as you have your frustrations with that, the phenomenon itself is born of a frustration with the media companies and their refusal to work with us instead of against us. That refusal is why the very interoperability you describe is not the norm. I will neither defend nor condemn piracy, but I will say that it sums up to a "fuck them then" sort of reaction that, from the perspective of human nature, is rather understandable or at least predictable. The media companies seriously believe that they can view their customers as a resource that they may take for granted, like so much lumber or iron ore.

      They believe they can do so with impunity, and if not for piracy, they would mostly be correct. Again I am not going to say whether it's right or wrong, only that the very companies which complain about piracy have done much to set the stage for it and to create the ill will that makes people feel justified when they infringe these copyrights. No one does anything unless they believe, verily or falsely, that it is the right thing to do, or at least that it is wrong but either justifiable or serves some kind of greater good. Those snide remarks you mention come from this sense of feeling justified, though of course there are better expressions of the same sentiment.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    5. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by oneirophrenos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Buy it once, use the pirated copy thereafter. After all you're purchasing a "license" and a "service" not a product, so all that matters is the license.

      I don't understand why you would pay for DRM-infested products, if you don't even intend to use them after purchase. What you are effectively doing there is rewarding the company for making user-unfriendly products. It might seem the "moral" thing to do, but it really just enables the company to remain "immoral" and continue with their anti-consumer policies.

    6. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      DRM has not been implemented correctly to date.

      Are you crazy?

      There IS no correct implementation of DRM.

      When a manufacturer puts DRM into a device, it means they want to control the device even when they no longer own it. And that means that at best, you're renting the device with a one time charge that they call a "purchase"... at worst, they're just laughing at you behind your back because you gave them money for nothing.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    7. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't matter. If you bought the CD, you have the right in the US under the fair use clause to download it.

      Really? Could you point me to the case that was decided that set the precedent for this? After all, issues like this in US law are based on precedent. Or failing that, can you point me to the exact phrase in the clause that unambiguously gives me the right to download copyrighted works if I already have a license for them?

    8. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by stabiesoft · · Score: 2

      and this is precisely why I still buy CD's. It is physical media, with no DRM. I can make a copy for my phone's memory, I can stick it on a hard drive to make playlists for the house, I can stick it in the car (and even record it on the CTS's hard drive) all legally. And the really really nice part is that CD has 16bit/44KHz sampling, so it sounds good on a good system. Of course the copy squished into the phone doesn't sound that great.

    9. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by Whillowhim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I completely disagree. Buying an item you don't intend to actually use is sending the wrong message. You're rewarding the book publishers for their insane DRM when you should be discouraging them.

      Finding pirated books can be a pain in the ass. If they're going to force me to spend time looking for a copy with bad proofreading and odd line-breaks, I'm going to ask for a refund on the money I spent on the book. Or better yet, just not spend it in the first place. Its not that I'm unwilling to buy ebooks, its that I value my time and spending 10-60 minutes looking through various websites/peer to peer applications is more valuable to me than the cost of the book in the first place.

      And for the record, I've spent just under $1000 at Baen's online store over the last 3 years, because the books there are unencumbered by DRM and are easy to find and buy. I'm more than willing to buy books if I'm given a fair deal. It just seems that a lot of book publishers are so scared by the piracy boogieman that they piss off their real customers.

    10. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by nine-times · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    11. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by HiThere · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.
    12. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 5, Informative
      This is precisely why I -don't- buy CDs anymore. I used to faithfully buy CDs from a band published through EMI. I play all my music from my PC and it's Very Fine (TM) sound system I spent a bunch of cash putting together. I do not own a stereo. One day, I bought the latest CD by this band and was surprised and confused as to why it stubbornly refused to play... turned out that EMI had put some copyprotection shit on the CD that resolutely refused to work with my CD playing software.

      Now, I'm technically literate so it was a simple thing to rip the CD bit-wise and produce lossless files from it and burn them to a CD, but I was so incensed by the whole experience that I swore an oath never to buy from EMI again, nor any company that put protection on its CDs. I PAID for that CD, dammit - I did the right thing because I wanted to support what they were doing. And yet I, the person who actually paid cash for it, was the one who couldn't enjoy it while Teh Evul Piratez could.

      Not only was their copy protection a waste of time, it was also lost them a faithful customer.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    13. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by easyTree · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Really though; who cares? If the law is out-of-synch with reality, should I play along? I think not... Do what's *right* not what's legal. You'll cause less damage / hurt less people and be much happier.

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    14. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by node+3 · · Score: 2, Funny

      While you might hope that your iTunes or Kindle--being a popular product--will have flawless DRM that will not inhibit you, this is simply not the case.

      I think iTunes current music DRM is pretty much flawless.

    15. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by KeithIrwin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unfortunately, this isn't really correct. The way the copyright law is written, you're not buying a license, you're buying a copy. This has several implications. The first is that you don't necessarily have the right to duplicate it onto your portable player, you car mp3 player, etc. Although most people suspect that the courts would rule this to be fair use, this has never been established. If the music were licensed, it would say specifically whether or not this were allowed and would most likely have to allow it to get consumers to buy it. The second is that you don't have to destroy copies upon transfer of ownership. So when you sell your mp3 player, you don't have to erase it. Or if you make a copy of something to discuss it in class (education and critical fair use) you aren't required to destroy it once you're done discussing it.

      Now, what's been happening is that the media companies (RIAA, MPAA, BSA) don't like the second implication of this. So they tell people that they aren't buying a copy, but only a license. This is nonsense. You don't need a license to read a book you've bought and you don't need a license to play an mp3 you bought. If you went to the grocer and he told you he was selling you a license to eat an apple and then handed you an apple, you'd correctly assume that he was being silly and just consider yourself the owner of the apple. This is the same thing which is happening with digital music files. They may say "I'm selling you a license", but what they've actually given you is a copy. You own that copy. It's fixed on your hard-drive, which you own. They may in some cases argue that they can attach a license to that purchase to restrict what you can do with your copy, but they're selling you a copy, not a license.

    16. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by nine-times · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It (The DRM Movement) is an attempt to circumvent fair use by controlling your computer, such that it cannot play music which you have the right to play under fair use unless you pay for it again. ... and again, and again, and again ...

      Sorry, but that's just not how copyright law works. Neither copyright law nor fair use really cover the *playing* of a song or the *listening* to it. It only covers the act of copying. If you buy a CD with copyrighted material, you can play it even without fair use, but without a license or fair use, you wouldn't be legally allowed to copy the CD.

      However, under current copyright law (AFAIK), buying a CD does not grant you any particular right to the copyrighted works of that CD. It does not give you a lifetime right to own a copy, and to make a copy in the event that your copy gets lost. Fair use only allows you to make backups of the copy that you own.

      So it seems to me that "fair use" would permit you to make a copy of your CD and keep it as a backup, but if you lose the CD and it's backup, it doesn't specifically give you the right to make a copy from the original that someone else owns.

      Of course, if we were writing copyright law now, it would make more sense to handle things the way you're suggesting, and it's the sort of legal distinction that would only be made explicit if there were an actual lawsuit. And I doubt there will be a lawsuit for private copying that doesn't include further distribution, so I doubt it will come up.

    17. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by node+3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh you do? Tell me, which third party devices and software support iTunes DRM?

      They all do, except those where the manufacturer chose not to include AAC support.

      And it works on Linux?

      Yes, Linux can play the files also.

    18. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by easyTree · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Bah. The moment law stopped being a codification of what the majority consider to be right and proper, it lost value.

      These days it's a codification of who's paid who and as such I choose to ignore it as much as I able; choosing instead to refer to my internal moral compass.

      I don't subscribe to the idea that every action or discussion must be arbitrated by a lawyer.

      I have a degree in computer science; am *I* to be consulted every time someone wants to email a friend or download some hedgehog pron* ? hopefully not

      * I sincerely hope that there's no such thing as hedgehog pron...

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    19. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by youngone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      *sigh* Sad isn't it? There you are, faithfully buying the music of your favourite band, and then enjoying it in whatever way suits you when you run headlong into Corporate Greed and Stupidity. That's pretty much why DRM will never work. What you want is pretty much in direct oppposition to what EMI (in this case) wants.

    20. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by fooslacker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree with everything you said except that DRM can be implemented correctly. The fact that people keep linking you to Pirate Bay is a perfect example of why DRM is so silly. It doesn't stop the pirates and it cripples the legit users.

      I'm currently furious about my Kindle download limits (something not advertised and something you can't find out prior to purchasing a book). I totally want to support the content creators but when they treat me like a criminal not only do I not want to support them I don't even want to read their book so I don't bother pirating it. The truly insidious thing about the Kindle problem is they wont' tell you if there is a limit, you just discover it after you buy and try to transfer it to your iPhone or your new Kindle. That to me seems like fraud. I'm sure it isn't legally fraud since Amazon and the publishers can afford lobbyists and I can't but if I were to do something like this to my neighbor it would definitely be considered nasty.

      DRM has got to go away, all it does is hurt the guy who wants to buy your product. The pirates just crack it and move on and when your product is badly crippled I can't blame them, they're actually fixing the flawed product you sold them at that point. Companies that use DRM encourage this sort of behavior and it will probably take some of them going out of business and that collapse being linked directly to DRM before it will change.

    21. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by _ivy_ivy_ · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unfortunately, it is not quite that perfect. It seems that their offer to upgrade DRMed tracks for $0.30 has a hitch. If the label decides to alter the title of the album slightly, you can't upgrade. For example, if they change the album title from "Groovy tunes" to "Groovey Tunes (remastered)" you are SOL. This stranded nearly 100 of my songs in iTunes hell. ("My songs" might be an inappropriate phrase.) The net result of this:

      Bye bye, iTunes. Hello, Amazon.

    22. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by hplus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, the one with DRMed videos.

    23. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by nabsltd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    24. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn? by Nazlfrag · · Score: 2, Informative

      Squirt them.

  2. Hate to say this, but... by nausea_malvarma · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Honestly, if you don't like it, nobody's forcing you to buy a zune or kindle. Boycotts are the only way these companies are gonna learn that customers won't tolerate DRM.

    1. Re:Hate to say this, but... by causality · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Honestly, if you don't like it, nobody's forcing you to buy a zune or kindle. Boycotts are the only way these companies are gonna learn that customers won't tolerate DRM.

      The possibility that concerns me is the other way that companies could handle that realization. They could design a DRM system that is generous on all counts, such that the average person has no pragmatic or material objection to its restrictions. This would make its adoption by customers much more widespread and would present the very convincing illusion of nullifying the arguments against DRM. Certainly it would nullify the reasons against it which are not rooted in principle. Effectively, that would cause people to willingly cede control to those companies so long as those companies put a smiling face on this process that is convincing enough, and that's a shame. In this way does our addiction to convenience and our superficial appreciation of only the most immediate concerns render us weak and able to be manipulated by those who claim to serve their customers.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:Hate to say this, but... by Drakonik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Amen. Nobody seems to understand that we (at least in America) live in a hugely capitalistic society, and that means that we as the consumer hold IMMENSE power. It's all well and good to buy an ipod and then write to Apple complaining about DRM, but that doesn't mean much, because they've got your money already.

      Exercise your capitalistic rights to control the market.

      tl;dr ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAH

    3. Re:Hate to say this, but... by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Your post makes it sound like DRM is bad."

      DRM _IS_ bad because there's no way to allow me to use media I purchase in any way I choose (e.g ripping DVDs to my MythTV server) while preventing me from giving those files to someone else.

      DRM simply cannot be 'implemented properly', because it's broken by design; either I control my use of purchased media or the IP Robber Barons do... there's no middle ground.

      Any effective DRM will cripple my use of media so much that I simply won't buy it. For example, I would have bought a few hundred Blu-Ray disks by now if it weren't for the DRM... if it's cracked to the point where I can use those disks as easily as DVDs, then I'll start buying them, but not until then.

    4. Re:Hate to say this, but... by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right on! I don't feel the slightest bit of pity for the suckers that bought the crap. It's got Digital Restriction Management! DUH! It's crippled. Why would you buy crippled equipment and content? The beauty of it is that M$ could ditch the Zune and it's DRM format for another crippled device with a new DRM system totally invalidating all previous downloads....and people would buy it! "A fool and his money are soon parted." -Thomas Tusser

    5. Re:Hate to say this, but... by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have no problem with DRM until it stops me from being able to use my media legally as I see fit. If a DRM scheme somehow prevented me from giving a file to my friends, but let me listen to the song on my ipod, Sansa, or Zune as I wished, that'd be perfectly okay. I don't mind buying products/services/licenses. The DRM that is demonized is the DRM that preemptively treats you like a criminal and unfairly restricts your usage of a PRODUCT THAT YOU PAID FOR THE USAGE OF.

      Your post makes it sound like DRM is bad. BAD DRM is bad. Whether or not it can be effectively implemented is another issue; I know you couldn't magically detect the difference between a new media player and a friend's thumb drive.

      All DRM is in fact bad because all DRM carries the assumption that you are incapable of doing the right thing and thus, must be actively prevented from doing the wrong thing. A DRM scheme that prevents you from giving a file to your friends is treating you like a criminal because the assumption behind it is that you WOULD give it to your friends -- they are so certain that you would do this, that they paid programmers to design a system to prevent it. To say that this restriction doesn't bother you because you wouldn't do that anyway misses the point. The point is that your morality means absolutely nothing if you have no ability to be immoral. To support any form of DRM is akin to saying that they are right to treat their customers in this adversarial, dehumanizing fashion.

      DRM is power. It's power to control markets, to micromanage customers, to dictate obsolescence, and to hold content hostage. It's a power that comes with no concept of due process or innocent until proven guilty. It's a power that is "justified" by the fact that media companies have chosen not to create a business model suitable for the Information Age, which is no justification at all. It's a power that was not given to the companies willingly, but rather was one that they have taken for themselves. It was born not of overwhelming customer demand, but rather, a desire to control.

      DRM is also a sad alternative to restoring the balance that once existed between the temporary monopoly granted by copyright and the benefit of society. Copyright was once only twelve years in duration, and this was when a mechanical printing press was the most technologically advanced method of distribution. We now have the ability to create and sell many more copies of a work in twelve years than we ever could have done before, yet copyright now has a ridiculous duration that has no concept of balance. It is plainly evident that you are dealing with people who are never going to be satisfied, for whom enough is never going to be enough.

      The reason why so many no longer respect copyright is because it is no longer respectable. Those who choose to respect it anyway give it a benefit of doubt that the media companies are not willing to extend to their customers. Restoring the balance that once existed could create a world where people again respect copyright because they can see that it is reasonable and good. Such people would not want to infringe it, and thus, would need no restraints to prevent them from doing so. The fact that this simple, self-evident truth is so hard for so many to imagine is evidence enough that we have gone too far down this negative path that we are on. More DRM, no matter how benign, could only take us farther down that path.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    6. Re:Hate to say this, but... by causality · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the DRM is so good that "the average person has no pragmatic or material objection to its restrictions" then objecting to it on "principle" alone becomes an exercise in, well, juvenile-wish-fulfillment. In fact, the "average" person has no problem with DRM schemes such as those that "lock" down DVDs or VHS (macrovision), nor those that iTunes had or most software has. I'm not saying that most DRM schemes are there yet, but if DRM is that unobtrusive, then I'd consider it an acceptable part of the real-world compromise necessary when dealing with the owners. I leave to each person to decide if that deal is Faustian or not.

      My explanation of why I object on the basis of principle can be found in this post. Far from being juvenile, it's a recognition that there are timeless things in life which are and always have been far more important than immediate convenience and certainly more important than whether you can play your music. The juvenile approach is the one in which convenience is everything, where all concerns about whether something is wrong are put to rest by access to entertainment. Such an approach knows nothing of principle, or of the difference between what is legal and what is right and good.

      What I'd fear more is the DRM schemes that are designed not to control but to outright discourage the use of digital media. Put on your tin-foil hat with me and ask for a second why content owners would allow online digital providers such as Wal-Mart, Amazon, MicroSoft, and Audible to run a service which can disable your ability to use a license not due to breach on your part but just because they don't want to maintain their servers anymore (and in some cases this has already happened, see Walmart). Any good contract between owner and provider would require that the customer be allowed continued use of the product as sold. Not having those provisions smacks of a scheme by the owners to be able to say "oh, your product doesn't work anymore, well, that's digital downloads for you. Aren't CDs so much nicer!"

      No tinfoil hat is necessary for that. All you're doing there is making the observation that these companies are still living in the past, a past time when they had full control over distribution. It's a natural consequence they have no interest in correctly dealing with digital media, as you have pointed out. They have not decided that technological progress has created a different world with new possibilities, and that this means they should evaluate whether their business model is suited to this new world. Instead, they still want that old world where they have full control and they are willing to become adversaries to their own customers in order to preserve it. That is the actual problem. Rather than address this problem and become a joy to do business with, they want to apply a band-aid and this band-aid is called DRM. Other band-aids include wielding political clout to purchase laws that benefit their interests at the expense of others, and making monstrous "examples" by financially ruining the lives of people who have done very little harm to anyone. I cannot in any good conscience support this effort, nor any devices designed to promote it. It's not just that it isn't working, it's that it is wrong. No amount of convenience and no degree of music player reliability is going to change that.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  3. Eating their cake and having it too by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    DRM is a fundamentally broken concept. It relies on the argument that you're purchasing a service and not a product, but then you're treated as though you purchased a product and not a service. In effect what's happening is that the consumer expends money and then literally has no rights whatsoever and, thanks to TOS/EULAs, no recourse either.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    1. Re:Eating their cake and having it too by AnEmbodiedMind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Great point.
      I generally hate DRM, unless as you say, the process really fits a service model.
      Zune has since moved away from DRM when you buy music - they now generally give you unprotected MP3s. But if you get a subscription it really is a service - you can download all the music you want but it will expire if you don't keep up the subscription (although you do get to keep 10 songs a month in MP3).
      I think that model of DRM is the only one that I've seen that actually seems fair and works.

  4. Euphamism? by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not news that the media you buy for both Kindle and Zune are protected by DRM.

    I hope it doesn't sound like too minor of a gripe, but I greatly prefer to call it encumbered by DRM.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    1. Re:Euphamism? by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 4, Funny

      I hope it doesn't sound like too minor of a gripe, but I greatly prefer to call it encumbered by DRM.

      I prefer to call it infested with DRM.

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    2. Re:Euphamism? by mR.bRiGhTsId3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps you shouldn't. When you say infested by DRM you have made an unnecessarily combative statement as though accusing the producers of something heinous. Granted, you are right, but it makes it harder to carry on a discourse with people who aren't already aligned with your view of thinking. Ditto for almost every alternative to Digital Rights Management listed on the GNU website. I particularly like "Digital Shackles" as a proposed alternative. I mean really? It just makes the whole conversation less civil and people more likely to dismiss your views as those of a zealot.

  5. DRM is not the solution by fermion · · Score: 2, Interesting
    For music, the DRM is all but gone. That Zune still carries DRM proves that to MS the end user is never the customer.

    The emerging problem is certainly books and video. Niether of these is going to be trivial to convert to electronic format anytime soon, and the files don't seem be trivial to burn to an unprotected format either. This means that video and books are still on the list, as music used to be, of only be useful as long as the files stay in good shape. It is interesting that Amazon has chosen to take this one step further and limit it to a number of devices. As the article states, since one is to upgrade often, and the files are owned by Amazon, this puts an effective lifetime on the books. Where on can buy a hardback and refer to it for a lifetime, the Kindle will eventually break.

    I think this is a good argument against most e-book readers. The publishers are not going to fully support them, and unless there is special need, the consumer does not get the value. Movies, are another issue, but pretty much I don't buy movies to download. Better value with $5-10 dvd.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  6. Don't by DRM protected media... by -noefordeg- · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?!

  7. F*ck DRM! F*ck it right in its stupidd a55! by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The first thing I do when I download media with DRM these days is strip the DRM. If I can't figure out how to strip it before I lay down my money, I pass. DRM does nothing to enhance my experience and can only serve to detract from my experience.

    Back 7 or 8 years ago, when ebooks were making their first surge, I bought about $50 worth from various vendors and didn't strip the DRM. It was a bit of an experiment to see how it would turn out. One of the vendors shut down just weeks after I made my purchase. I hadn't even activated one of the titles yet so it was a total loss. The other one was only readable as long as that computer lived. Same happened with the rest of the titles eventually. So $50 worth of ebooks I purchased just a few years ago are gone forever. Meanwhile, paperbacks I purchased when I was a kid still work just as well as the day I bought them. Nevermind the hassle of keeping track of each vendor's authentication system and the crap-ton of different software packages I had to install to handle all of those methods.

    The funny thing is this isn't even the first time a major online music "seller" has screwed people by revoking access to purchased media. Wasn't it just a few years ago that some big seller shut down or changed their authentication system and the users got a big FU for all of their lost music?

  8. Zune Marketplace not Zune device by silmarilwest · · Score: 2, Interesting

    is the problem in this case. The device is not without flaws, but it seems unfair to blame the device for a flaw with the app store (I'd criticize it more for not being able to handle naturally occurring dates). The majority of users won't use their player for DRM protected content although they should clearly have the ability to do so without worrying about this scenario. Pathetic doesn't even begin to describe these types of restrictions.

  9. Re:F*ck DRM! F*ck it right in its stupidd a55! by Sirusjr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is the same reason why I buy all my music in CD format and all my games in Disc format. I am already into some Niche genres as it is (Movie scores, euro-style power metal, heavy metal, Japanese-Pop; and on the game side JRPGS) so what is to stop these companies from removing the Niche stuff from their services because they don't think very many consumers are going to miss them? Sadly one of my cds I picked up used was one of those old DRM'd cds from Sony that I can't rip, but at least I can listen to it as much as I want. The point of all this is that in the end the physical media is the better bargain regardless of the online options.

  10. Re:F*ck DRM! F*ck it right in its stupidd a55! by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are tons of DVD rippers and 1.5tb drives are regularly on sale for $120. Sometimes even $110. Dual layer burners are $20-25.

  11. Re:Surprised... by Sirusjr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I prefer the zune to the IPOD because I never was a fan of the clickwheel and the way the IPOD tends to organize your music. I've had my 30gb zune for years now and it still works great. I'm hoping that it will live long enough so that the ZUNEHD comces out and I can get the 120gb zune for cheap. Plus the zune has a better quality audio jack when it comes to the output you get to regular headphones. Now if only they would come out with a 300gb version that supports FLAC and cue sheets.

  12. Legal risk for the vendors if this keeps up by davidwr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Vendors who incorporate DRM and who rig it so the songs quit working when certain events happen will be in trouble with the law if they don't advertise this in advance, like "if you buy this song, you may have to buy it again if you upgrade your media device or if it breaks and is repaired."

    Failure to do that is breach of implied contract: You bought the music with the understanding it would work at least for the lifetime of the device on which it was originally installed.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  13. Geez, at 80K per tune, its a tough sell...... by Bob_Who · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I guess a crappy DRM ripoff is a better deal than $80,000.00 per download with no DRM.....but not much better. You would think that Microsoft was capable of real innovation, but no.... Once you've got lots of shareholders its all about squeezing every dollar out of a weary market, even if its not a very good experience for anyone. I see DRM as the result of greed mixed with technology and music. Too bad they can't just sell us blank tapes like 20 years ago when copyright infringement was a charge placed against someone who mas produced and SOLD the material, not customers who copied a CD for their car stereo. Hopefully this nonsense will find a balance...once the beast has been adequately fed with our $$, I suppose. D R M = Demand Royalty Money.

  14. Re:And the lesson, children, is... by jisatsusha · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, the lesson is don't buy DRMed content, stop encouraging them.

  15. Microsoft violating its own EULA. by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  16. DRM as service treated like product -- well said by schwaang · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Which is why I find it misleading when Amazon shows the price of the kindle version and directly compares it to the price of the deadtree version. They are really two completely different animals, and this hidden download limit is one great example of what makes the comparison false.

    (I try to use my kindle and kindle iphone app with open eyes, but I didn't know about this download limit until now.)

  17. Re:DRM is valid for some instances by Kopiok · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From what I remember, the Zune pass allows you access to anything in the Zune store library as long as you pay the subscription. Removed from the library? Can't listen to the music. Stop paying? Can't listen to the music. You are not purchasing any music, you are paying money to access a library. The Zune marketplace is a completely different service than outright purchasing music. I believe they give you 10 un-DRM'd downloads per month along with the subscription, so you can see they do see the fact that their customers want DRM-free tracks.

  18. Update to the Amazon story by BlackCreek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  19. The Error Is Informative by macs4all · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "There might be another iteration of it..."

    Another ITERATION of it?!?!?!?

    This error message demonstrates EXACTLY why Microsoft Just Doesn't Get It(TM).

    Most people on /. know what "Iteration" means; but PLEASE find me 10 (non-dev and non-IT) people on the street who can give a definition of "Iteration" in that sentence.

    If you have your C++ code jockeys approve Error text, this is what you get.

    You would NEVER see the word "Iteration" (howabout "Copy"?) in an Apple Dialog (unless it was in a dev. tool like XCode).

    "Iteration", INDEED!

  20. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn?$1.9M FINE by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Buy it once, use the pirated copy thereafter. After all you're purchasing a "license" and a "service" not a product, so all that matters is the license.

    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."
  21. Re:DRM as service treated like product -- well sai by sjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  22. Re:DRM is valid for some instances by dreemernj · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You can go to the Zune Marketplace and just buy DRM-free MP3s if you want to as well. ZunePass is just a different way of accessing it. There is DRMed music there too. I rarely find that the a particular song I want on there has DRM, but it is there. When I encounter it, I try Amazon instead.

    --
    1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
  23. Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn?$1.9M FINE by davester666 · · Score: 2, Informative

    19 plastic disc's.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  24. Re:So what does the word "limited" mean to you by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative

    All I could see when I read that was the big honking word "LIMITED".

    Limited to time? Sure. Availability? Why not!

    Because ambiguity in a contract is construed against the drafter of the contract. Provided you meet the limits explicitly specified ("personal, noncommercial use") you can do anything you want with the content, and Microsoft is barred from imposing further restrictions after the fact.

  25. iPhone 3.0 iTunes Store Terms of Service by flerndip · · Score: 2, Informative

    It should be noted that upon installing the iPhone 3.0 update, one must once again agree to the iTunes Store Terms of Service. Careful examination reveals this contract to be sixty-seven pages in length. I shit you not.