Microsoft Zune

[Marlat]

No - it's not the owners of copyright that are doing it. I can buy the same songs with or without DRM from various places. The DRM is added by the third party who does NOT hold the copyright, in this example Microsoft.

Look at it this way. If I buy a song from emusic.com then it's legal, it's in normal MP3 form and it contains no DRM restrictions. If I buy the same song from iTunes I can only play it on an iPod or iTunes and I'm limited to playback on a limited number of computers or an unlimited number of iPods. As the songs contain FairPlay(tm) DRM they can only be played on systems that support such DRM. I, for example, cannot play songs bought from the iTunes store on Linux.


This really scares me that so many people know so little about something that potentially has such a huge effect on using media.
I should have known that posting on a musicians' forum would lead to people saying "You don't like it because you want to share music illegally" but that's not the case - I don't want to share music illegally, I just want to retain my rights to listen to music I HAVE BOUGHT on whatever device I choose to and to make a backup so that, should my hard drive crash, I don't have to buy everything again. It's THIS that companies like Microsoft are trying to remove.

Consider:

In Australia, it is illegal (ie breach of copyright) to make a backup of music or software that you have purchased without and express license to do so. Now consider the purchase of a CD. You can play it on any CD player you like. However, you cannot play it on a record player or, for that matter, a toaster. If you were to create a "copy" of the music on the CD so it could be played on a record player or a toaster, you would be in breach of copyright in Australia. I am not sure how your example of DRM which restricts what devices the music can be played significantly differs from this. Just because you buy something in a digital format does not mean that there is a guarantee that you should be allowed to play it on any device.

Another example would be software. Just because I buy software does not mean I should be able to use say, an Xbox game on a PS3. No one in their right mind assumes that it can be. So, why should someone selling digital music not be able to restrict the playback of a product they are selling?

Again, laws differ depending on jurisdiction, but I still dont see the problem.

 

[Captain Chaos]

I'd buy it.

Link Removed

 

[Komakino]

Consider:

In Australia, it is illegal (ie breach of copyright) to make a backup of music or software that you have purchased without and express license to do so. Now consider the purchase of a CD. You can play it on any CD player you like. However, you cannot play it on a record player or, for that matter, a toaster. If you were to create a "copy" of the music on the CD so it could be played on a record player or a toaster, you would be in breach of copyright in Australia. I am not sure how your example of DRM which restricts what devices the music can be played significantly differs from this. Just because you buy something in a digital format does not mean that there is a guarantee that you should be allowed to play it on any device.

Another example would be software. Just because I buy software does not mean I should be able to use say, an Xbox game on a PS3. No one in their right mind assumes that it can be. So, why should someone selling digital music not be able to restrict the playback of a product they are selling?

Again, laws differ depending on jurisdiction, but I still dont see the problem.

Your argument is entirely fallacious because you've used entirely false comparisons. To compare rights restrictions with incompatibility is not the same issue. No one in their right mind buys a CD with the intention of being able to play it on a toaster, but they do buy an MP3 with the intention of being able to listen to it on their computer or on their in-car MP3 player, and DRM restricts that.

You wouldn't buy a CD that could only play in one room in your house, so why would an MP3 be any different? If a song is restricted to one computer then that is EXACTLY the same idea. Or will you suggest that everyone who wants to move their music buys a laptop?

And laws and jurisdiction is also erroneous as DRM is not something brought in as a legal requirement, it is, in effect, Microsoft, Apple, et al creating their own laws. You must also remember that many laws regarding the copying / backup of music were made years, if not decades, ago before digital music was an issue, and in fact in the UK there was recently a recommendation that our non-backup law be revised or replaced to reflect this.

 

[Marlat]

Your argument is entirely fallacious because you've used entirely false comparisons. To compare rights restrictions with incompatibility is not the same issue. No one in their right mind buys a CD with the intention of being able to play it on a toaster, but they do buy an MP3 with the intention of being able to listen to it on their computer or on their in-car MP3 player, and DRM restricts that.

You wouldn't buy a CD that could only play in one room in your house, so why would an MP3 be any different? If a song is restricted to one computer then that is EXACTLY the same idea. Or will you suggest that everyone who wants to move their music buys a laptop?

And laws and jurisdiction is also erroneous as DRM is not something brought in as a legal requirement, it is, in effect, Microsoft, Apple, et al creating their own laws. You must also remember that many laws regarding the copying / backup of music were made years, if not decades, ago before digital music was an issue, and in fact in the UK there was recently a recommendation that our non-backup law be revised or replaced to reflect this.

I think you are maken a mistaken assumption. You are assuming that digital music (eg an MP3) must be able to be played on every digital music player. Why?

That is where my toaster comparison comes in. Once you accept that an "iTunes" MP3 file (for arguments sake) is only been designed to play in a certain way then trying to play it on something else is like trying to play a CD on a toaster. Your premise is erroneous because you assume that because its a digital file it must be able to be played on every player. That is simply not the case.

You are right, you wouldn't buy a CD that can only be played in one room. However, that does not mean that any particular company is not free to make a CD that can only be played in one room and consumers are free to decide whether or not they want to buy it. Just like, Apple & Microsoft are free to make digital files with restrictions on them and you are free to choose whether that suits your needs or not. Again, whats the big deal? This is a digital world, I am not sure why this concept is so hard to grasp, its, again, just like someone buying a PC game and complaining it doesnt allow them to play it on their PS3. No one forced you to buy it, but when you do, you live with the restrictions imposed by the maker / seller.

 

[IanStephenson]

DRM is evil... Just say no.

It's been made pretty clear that DRM goes way beyond what copyright laws provide for, and impose restrictions on the use of music that previously we had rights to do.

However in Apple's case I have no problems - it's not the HARDWARE that is restricted, but the music store downloads. Just don't use the music store for anything but free stuff (or whatever you're prepared to loose). The iPod does everything the generic players do, and if it CAN play DRM'd stuff thats OK, but I'm not going to buy any.

If anything the Zune is going to be a great thing for anti-DRM, as in this case MS have pulled a nasty one at a hardware level, by dropping "play for sure" (or "play for as long as we say so" as it is now), which they said guarenteed ti woudl work on any MS authorised player. Zune downloads don't play on previous MS licensed hardware. Old downloads MAY (or may not) play on Zune's, and may (or not) do so on future versions even if they do now...

When this hits the mainstream media it's going to push DRM into the spotlight, in a pleasently negative way. Once the general public realises that their "purchased" music is now unplayable because MS changed their minds they''re going to be pretty furious, and even the masses will realise that legal (DRM'd) downloads are for suckers.

Ian

 

[Komakino]

I think you are maken a mistaken assumption. You are assuming that digital music (eg an MP3) must be able to be played on every digital music player. Why?

That is where my toaster comparison comes in. Once you accept that an "iTunes" MP3 file (for arguments sake) is only been designed to play in a certain way then trying to play it on something else is like trying to play a CD on a toaster. Your premise is erroneous because you assume that because its a digital file it must be able to be played on every player. That is simply not the case.

You are right, you wouldn't buy a CD that can only be played in one room. However, that does not mean that any particular company is not free to make a CD that can only be played in one room and consumers are free to decide whether or not they want to buy it. Just like, Apple & Microsoft are free to make digital files with restrictions on them and you are free to choose whether that suits your needs or not. Again, whats the big deal? This is a digital world, I am not sure why this concept is so hard to grasp, its, again, just like someone buying a PC game and complaining it doesnt allow them to play it on their PS3. No one forced you to buy it, but when you do, you live with the restrictions imposed by the maker / seller.

No, I'm not assuming it should play on every digital music player. I'm saying that if a music player is compatible (i.e. plays that format) then I should be able to play it on that. What DRM is looking to do is say "OK, you have two computers - both play format X, but you can only play it on this one". Either you're being difficult intentionally, or you really don't understand the issue here, or more specifically my issue with it.

I'll go right back to what worries me, maybe that will help things:

It doesn't worry me that companies want to put restrictions on things - it does worry me that people are subscribing to these things without realising what they're subscribing to. Most people do not know what DRM is so they buy these players and before you know it we have a de facto file format which includes DRM and anything that isn't compatible with that doesn't get a look in.

Similar example: There are various file formats, most of which are patented. One example is MP3. MP3 is a patented format. If you want to make a hardware MP3 player then you have to pay royalties to the company holding the MP3 patent. There is also the OGG Vorbis audio format, regarded by many to be a better format than the MP3, which has no such patent restrictions and is an open format which can be implemented by anybody who wants to. However, because MP3 adoption was so widespread when it first came along, every player out there sees this as the format to support and OGG is rarely supported on hardware players (though some do). This in effect maks MP3 the file format standard and the consumer has little choice to use patent-free formats because few players support them and those that do have fewer other features. The choice is take it or leave it.

Unless you're a huge corporation that can afford to dump your format on people by including it as the format your included ripper rips to (i.e. Microsoft and the horrible WMA format) then your format will never take off, no matter how great it it.

This is what concerns me. So many people buy into DRM without realising it that eventually nobody offers an alternative and those that don't want it are left with the choice of use it, or lose out.

I guess ultimately it comes down to this: I will not buy into anything that restricts my usage. Thankfully I'm not alone. If you want to buy into this stuff then go ahead, but you're in for a nasty surprise a couple of years down the line when your Zune breaks and the latest players use a different format - you'll have a large collection of music that you can't play any more. Think I'm exagerating? Look at what MS does with Office every release - it changes the file format (and then keeps it secret) so that you have to upgrade, lest you can't open documents sent to you that were created on the latest version.

 

[Komakino]

DRM is evil... Just say no.

It's been made pretty clear that DRM goes way beyond what copyright laws provide for, and impose restrictions on the use of music that previously we had rights to do.

However in Apple's case I have no problems - it's not the HARDWARE that is restricted, but the music store downloads. Just don't use the music store for anything but free stuff (or whatever you're prepared to loose). The iPod does everything the generic players do, and if it CAN play DRM'd stuff thats OK, but I'm not going to buy any.

If anything the Zune is going to be a great thing for anti-DRM, as in this case MS have pulled a nasty one at a hardware level, by dropping "play for sure" (or "play for as long as we say so" as it is now), which they said guarenteed ti woudl work on any MS authorised player. Zune downloads don't play on previous MS licensed hardware. Old downloads MAY (or may not) play on Zune's, and may (or not) do so on future versions even if they do now...

When this hits the mainstream media it's going to push DRM into the spotlight, in a pleasently negative way. Once the general public realises that their "purchased" music is now unplayable because MS changed their minds they''re going to be pretty furious, and even the masses will realise that legal (DRM'd) downloads are for suckers.

Ian

I'm glad you're here Ian, I was starting to think that I was fighting a losing battle. I'm sure the only people who think DRM is OK are those who don't fully understand the implications.

 

[Philbiker]

Think I'm exagerating? Look at what MS does with Office every release - it changes the file format (and then keeps it secret) so that you have to upgrade, lest you can't open documents sent to you that were created on the latest version.

What we have here is the single most ridiculous sentence I've read this week.

With the possible exception of the diatribe about compression formats above it.

DRM is not nearly as evil as you people are making it out to be. I don't mind it at all. Just as I don't mind copy protection schemes for software which sometimes cause me a little extra work. I suspect you may be surprised at how many people don't mind these things.

 

[Sonic_Death]

Stop Hi-Jacking the thread! This was supposed to be Zune bashing

 

[Komakino]

What we have here is the single most ridiculous sentence I've read this week.

With the possible exception of the diatribe about compression formats above it.

DRM is not nearly as evil as you people are making it out to be. I don't mind it at all. Just as I don't mind copy protection schemes for software which sometimes cause me a little extra work. I suspect you may be surprised at how many people don't mind these things.

Rediculous why phil? It's entirely true, as is what's written about compression above. I've stated quite clearly why I think they're bad. Do you have anything to offer in the way of argument or does yours end at simple contradiction?

 

[Marlat]

Either you're being difficult intentionally, or you really don't understand the issue here, or more specifically my issue with it.

Or we understand the issue completely and just disagree with your view of it. Your failure to see that this possibility speaks volumes. Storm, meet teacup.

I'm done.