[Xpander]

Not that I'm defending Microsoft (this auto-DRM thing is pretty anal-retentive), but since this applies only to WI-FI transfers, which is a feature that's exclusive to the player and doesn't hinder the standard file transmission methods that other players are limited to, what's the outrage all about again?

What player even has WI-FI transfers in the first place?

Right.

Now, if this DRM encoding is being forced upon ALL files transfers from the Zune, then everybody has a total right to bitch and complain. So until that revelation pops up, some of you either need to practice some reading comprehension or cut out the dumb anti-M$ bias. I particularly like how very few really cared about the WI-FI feature in the first place, but once a limitation on the FEATURE pops out, it's used by everybody and mothers to denounce the whole player AND the company behind it!

Opinions are fine, but seriously, grow up.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Opinions are fine, but seriously, grow up.

Indeed.

So, if we can move the thread away from mindless product bashing... I'm still curious as to why they don't simply detect the DRM flag and use that to determine whether Wi-Fi transfers need to be protected. Is it a technical reason or a legal reason? I can't think of a very good basis for either, except... perhaps they are concerned that owners will load the player with copyrighted material without DRM (very likely) and then share it via Wi-Fi... in which case they would be file sharing copyrighted material over the Internet, no different really than if you were doing the same from a PC. In that case I could see a concern on the part of the legal department since that practice is clearly illegal. And of course in that case the restriction would have more to do with the current state of electronic copyright law than as a result of any choice by Microsoft. My guess is that Microsoft may well not have even desired to do it this way but felt that they had to.

.

 

[pds6]

Xpander says,
Quote:

only to WI-FI transfers. . . need to practice some reading comprehension . . . grow up.

If your telling me that DMR's are only applied to copy protected filed before Wi-Fi transfers, I would have less of a problem.

Xpander, let use comprehend together:


MdeiaLoper in part states:
Quote:

Zune accomplishes this amazingly stupid feat by wrapping shared music in a proprietary layer of DRM, regardless of what format the original content may be in . . . What Microsoft has created is a new form of viral DRM. Zune will intentionally infect your music with the DRM virus before passing it along to one of your friends.

Nabble says,
Quote:

Based on the item below it appears that Zune’s viral approach to DRM is in violation of all of Creative Commons licenses. It’ll be interesting to see how long it takes before someone actually challenges Microsoft on this.

thedigitalmusicweblog says,
Quote:

This is exactly the kind of crippling, anti-consumer "feature" I've been warning of as the lead up to Microsoft's new device warbled on.

My reading comprehension is pretty good. How's yours?

EDIT:
ILIKEMUSIC say:
Quote:

I'm still curious as to why they don't simply detect the DRM flag and use that to determine whether Wi-Fi transfers need to be protected.

I agree with this statement, but this is not the case.

Quote:

My guess is that Microsoft may well not have even desired to do it this way but felt that they had to.

I do not agree with this statement and that is my bitch! I don't need a mother looking over my shoulder and Microsoft is not a victm!

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

My guess is that Microsoft may well not have even desired to do it this way but felt that they had to. I do not agree with this statement and that is my bitch! I don't need a mother looking over my shoulder and Microsoft is not a victm!

Then what do you propose for a reason (and preferably a non-hysterical, secret conspiracy-free reason) for Microsoft doing it this way?

 

[Wetzilla]

I see it as most bloggers/news sites are overreacting. Sure, there are "workarounds" for getting music off the ipod, but there will be workarounds for getting the music off the zune without DRM. The Zune isn't going to inject the mp3s on your computer with DRM, only the ones put on the player. With the wifi transfers, thats needed. Otherwise you could rip a cd to your computer, put it on your zune, and transmit it to everyone. I really don't think this is a huge issue, because look at how many people care about the itunes DRM. Not a signifigant amount.

Quote:

They're trying to limit your use of your own rips.

They aren't limiting it's use. They are limiting you from sending it to other people unprotected. You are going to be able to use it exactly the same as if it had no drm. Apple just says, once it's on the ipod it's never coming off, unless you delete it.

The whole issue with creative commons liscence though is a good topic, and one that Microsoft definintly needs to address.

 

[Wetzilla]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic Then what do you propose for a reason (and preferably a non-hysterical, secret conspiracy-free reason) for Microsoft doing it this way?

I heard J Allard say (yes he could have been lieing, but it certainly didn't seem that way) that he really did not like DRM, but they had to put it on there and the tracks sold through the Zune store for legal reasons.

 

[pds6]

ILikeMusic says:
Quote:

Then what do you propose for a reason (and preferably a non-hysterical, secret conspiracy-free reason) for Microsoft doing it this way?

Dear ILikeMusic:
Who's hysterical? What conspiracy? Stop the name calling and stick to the facts.

The answer to your question is very simply. Microsoft had a choice. The RIAA (Record Industry Association of America - The people that sue 14 year old children in Federal Courts for millions of dollars) or the consumer. Apple Computer was also given the choice. Apple picked the consumer (for the most part) and we have one price shopping (The RIAA are also the people that wanted to charge $2.00 or $3.00 for popular songs).

As I clearly told you, I have no problem with Micosoft wrapping files that they know are copy protected before WiFi transmission to a third-party.

The bar has now been lowered by Microsoft and the Zune. All files to be drm'ed on the Zune. Well, I can email and WiFi music from my computer. So, if DRM wrapped WiFi is good enough for the Zune, why not dmr-wrap on my computer?

ILikeMusic, the camel's nose is in the tent and all you can say is "So What!" or tell other to calm down.

Trust Me, If no one yells blood murder, the RIAA will use Microsoft and their dmr-wrap as the fulcrum to knock Apple and everyone else into line.

 

[Xpander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pds6 The answer to your question is very simply. Microsoft had a choice. The RIAA (Record Industry Association of America - The people that sue 14 year old children in Federal Courts for millions of dollars) or the consumer. Apple Computer was also given the choice. Apple picked the consumer (for the most part) and we have one price shopping (The RIAA are also the people that wanted to charge $2.00 or $3.00 for popular songs). As I clearly told you, I have no problem with Micosoft wrapping files that they know are copy protected before WiFi transmission to a third-party. The bar has now been lowered by Microsoft and the Zune. All files to be drm'ed on the Zune. Well, I can email and WiFi music from my computer. So, if DRM wrapped WiFi is good enough for the Zune, why not dmr-wrap on my computer? ILikeMusic, the camel's nose is in the tent and all you can say is "So What!" or tell other to calm down. Trust Me, If no one yells blood murder, the RIAA will use Microsoft and their dmr-wrap as the fulcrum to knock Apple and everyone else into line.

To refer to your other post, I don't doubt that M$ is violating the creative license, and I didn't actually challenge the idea (nor am I very familiar with the licenses) . However, in our day and age, where new methods of information transfer is increasingly challenging the usefulness and relevance of older legal definitions, what makes the letter of the law all that concrete?

For reference, see entire spectrum of IP law.

Again, every single thing that you've listed is discussing a limitation specific only to the WI-FI feature. If ALL transfers made from the Zune slapped an extra layer of DRM on it, WI-FI or standard computer transfers included, then I'd wholeheartedly agree: **** Microsoft. However, I've been looking for hints of how Microsoft has imposed these DRM restrictions on standard transfers as well, and haven't seen a single reference demonstrating that this is the case (or not, for that matter). All the quotes that you posted contained zero salient information on this matter. Certainly nothing useful in that regard has been presented by anyone admonishing M$ for its implementation.

Viral DRM? Prove it. So far all that's known is that the DRM is applied to a single file transfer instance. After the DRM limit is passed, the file becomes useless. Show me one proof that this is infectious or self-replicating in any way! From the medialoper article, all I see is a whole lot of uninformed adjective-laden blogger speak, the type that's commonly expressed by those who think they're hip or knowledgable because they can insult some big corporate monstrosity with the catchphrase of the day.

Tell me something, if I was to buy the Zune and slap pirated files without DRM on it and walk around and trade them with people around the city, how should the player distinguish between a illegal file transfer such as that and the transfer of a personally recorded file? Once you've tried to think of the answer and come up with none, kindly remember that without said DRM measures, this device is now capable of creating an entirely new and relatively affordable peer-to-peer file sharing system that's unhindered by bulky computers. This system would be uncontrollable in any way whatsoever and can't even be limited by current measures designed to curb illegal file sharing such as network monitoring. That's right kids, it's that ****ing huge. Why not think about how the recording industry would think of such an event and what they would have to say to M$.

I find it grossly, GROSSLY entertaining that when it comes to itune DRM, tons of ipod users will restlessly defend Apple, expressing how the limits are tolerable and how Apple's hands are tied by RIAA. All of a sudden when M$ implements a DRM system for a method of file sharing (which is optional and is offered in no way, shape, or form by any other DAP manufacturer, by the way), everybody screams VIOLATION! VIRUS! Not to mention that it all of a sudden becomes M$'s fault that the RIAA is being assinine.

Think about this crap next time before you start on your conspiracy theories.

 

[KenW]

Now that's a decision sure to boost sales of their entry into the portable market. Amazing. I'd listen from my pda or phone before I purchase something that handcuffs me like that.

 

[blinx]

well said xpander

im hoping for a way to hack the zune so you could share movies with friends

 

[pds6]

Xpander says:

Quote:

I don't doubt that M$ is violating the creative license . . .where new methods of information transfer is increasingly challenging . . what makes the letter of the law all that concrete?

Let's see how my reading comprehension is:

You tell the reader that the Microsoft's drm is illegal. We agree.

I must admit, the end of this paragraph does challenge my comprehension. When you state:"new methods ... make the letter of the law all that concrete?", are you saying that Common Law concepts of Larceny should not apply to people who illegally file share music or are you telling me that its alright for Microsoft to break the law? For myself, I think both practices should remain illegal.

I believe your second and third paragraph addresses two issues. (1) "Again, every single thing that you've listed is discussing a limitation specific only to the WI-FI feature". and, (2) My post is madeup of "a whole lot of uninformed adjective-laden blogger speak."

As to question one, we don't agree. Microsoft has the ability to track, recognize and drm-wrap their own music. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO WRAP MY LEGAL NON-DRM MUSIC. If Microsoft beleives they can drm-wrap my legal music on their player, what is to stop the drm-wrapping of my legal music on their operating system. Once you say its o.k. for one, it will be o.k. for all. CAN'T YOU SEE THE RIAA GOING TO CONGRESS AND TELLING THEM HOW EVERYBODY LOVES THE ZUNE AND THAT DRM-WRAPPING SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO THE COMPUTER. MY GOD!

As to "a whole lot of uniformed adjective-laden blogger speak", let me quote PC World: "Microsoft has showed the device to music bloggers some of who have said that it's OK but a tad chunky and heavy compared to the iPod." Microsoft is the one that showed it to those gang of "uniformed adjective-laden blogger speak".

Again, name calling in the face of facts. You must be a Republican.

On to your four paragraph:
"Tell me something, if I was to buy the Zune and slap pirated files without DRM on it and walk around and trade them with people around the city, how should the player distinguish between a illegal file transfer such as that and the transfer of a personally recorded file?"

When did this become my problem. According to you, Microsoft can drm my legal files because someone could illegally file share. Did you hear, Toyota is coming out with a car that can't go over 55 miles an hour because people speed. Did you hear, all restaurants are serving rabbit food because Americans are overweight. Did you hear . . .

As to: "Once you've tried to think of the answer and come up with none ... Think about this crap next time before you start on your conspiracy theories."

Reality is looking you in the face and all you can do is name call.

 

[milkpowder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pds6 Xpander says: Let's see how my reading comprehension is: You tell the reader that the Microsoft's drm is illegal. We agree. I must admit, the end of this paragraph does challenge my comprehension. When you state:"new methods ... make the letter of the law all that concrete?", are you saying that Common Law concepts of Larceny should not apply to people who illegally file share music or are you telling me that its alright for Microsoft to break the law? For myself, I think both practices should remain illegal. I believe your second and third paragraph addresses two issues. (1) "Again, every single thing that you've listed is discussing a limitation specific only to the WI-FI feature". and, (2) My post is madeup of "a whole lot of uninformed adjective-laden blogger speak." As to question one, we don't agree. Microsoft has the ability to track, recognize and drm-wrap their own music. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO WRAP MY LEGAL NON-DRM MUSIC. If Microsoft beleives they can drm-wrap my legal music on their player, what is to stop the drm-wrapping of my legal music on their operating system. Once you say its o.k. for one, it will be o.k. for all. CAN'T YOU SEE THE RIAA GOING TO CONGRESS AND TELLING THEM HOW EVERYBODY LOVES THE ZUNE AND THAT DRM-WRAPPING SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO THE COMPUTER. MY GOD! As to "a whole lot of uniformed adjective-laden blogger speak", let me quote PC World: "Microsoft has showed the device to music bloggers some of who have said that it's OK but a tad chunky and heavy compared to the iPod." Microsoft is the one that showed it to those gang of "uniformed adjective-laden blogger speak". Again, name calling in the face of facts. You must be a Republican. On to your four paragraph: "Tell me something, if I was to buy the Zune and slap pirated files without DRM on it and walk around and trade them with people around the city, how should the player distinguish between a illegal file transfer such as that and the transfer of a personally recorded file?" When did this become my problem. According to you, Microsoft can drm my legal files because someone could illegally file share. Did you hear, Toyota is coming out with a car that can't go over 55 miles an hour because people speed. Did you hear, all restaurants are serving rabbit food because Americans are overweight. Did you hear . . . As to: "Once you've tried to think of the answer and come up with none ... Think about this crap next time before you start on your conspiracy theories." Reality is looking you in the face and all you can do is name call.

Whatever you say, Microsoft is still going to DRM every single "wifi'ed" song. My gut feeling tells me that they're not going to DRM files that are not being "wifi'ed". Only time will tell...

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

CAN'T YOU SEE THE RIAA GOING TO CONGRESS AND TELLING THEM HOW EVERYBODY LOVES THE ZUNE AND THAT DRM-WRAPPING SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO THE COMPUTER. MY GOD!

News Flash: They already have. The idea of unbreakable DRM all the way to the speakers (for everything, meaning you would have to get a DRM code even for stuff you record yourself) has been the Holy Grail to the music industry for some time. This all started long before the Zume and will exist long after the Zume.

Quote:

Tell me something, if I was to buy the Zune and slap pirated files without DRM on it and walk around and trade them with people around the city, how should the player distinguish between a illegal file transfer such as that and the transfer of a personally recorded file? Once you've tried to think of the answer and come up with none, kindly remember that without said DRM measures, this device is now capable of creating an entirely new and relatively affordable peer-to-peer file sharing system that's unhindered by bulky computers. This system would be uncontrollable in any way whatsoever and can't even be limited by current measures designed to curb illegal file sharing such as network monitoring. That's right kids, it's that ****ing huge. Why not think about how the recording industry would think of such an event and what they would have to say to M$.

That pretty much sums up the problem.

I don't think that anyone likes DRM but there has to be some solution to the copyright issue else illegal file sharing will continue to be rampant, and while I greatly disagree with their sledgehammer approach the recording industry obvioulsy has reasonable cause to be concerned. DRM will continue to exist in one form or another and consumers need to be vigilant to make sure that DRM restrictions remain reasonable and fair. And the way to do this is to save the all-caps complaints for your legislators, not companies that are (like it or not) just following the law.

.

 

[blinx]

personally, i think that the way that these mp3's are going to be DRM'ed is going to be different from the others.

i like to think about it like encapselation (excuse the spelling

) process of a packet on the internet. basically, as it goes down the TCP/IP model on your computer, it gets different things added onto the packet, like a mac adress and destination IP address.

i think that microsoft will just tack on a DRM on that song thats being sent. so it just effects the song being sent and not the whole library

 

[Wodgy]

This whole thread is a disaster.

The only real issue with the added DRM is usability. This scheme significantly impairs the usability of the Zune's Wi-Fi feature. If you want to send music to a friend, the DRM means that you have to fiddle with Zune networking, then three days later, remember to email the guy the song. It's a two step process. Why not just skip the first step and email the guy the music in the first place? It makes no sense for the consumer, and it really marginalizes the usefulness of the Wi-Fi transfer feature.

Very, very few people care about the Creative Commons issue. Most people don't even understand it. In particular, Cory Doctorow and the original EFF poster, the very people who publicized the issue, don't even understand it. It's not Microsoft who's breaking the terms of the Creative Commons license. It's the owner of the Zune if s/he chooses to transfer a CC-licensed song to another Zune, knowing that the device will apply DRM. If you photocopy a book, it's not Xerox who has committed copyright infringement, it is you. The fact that Cory didn't even bother to think this through before spouting off his foul-mouthed rhetoric ("eat s*** and die") suggests that this is all about publicity for a small group of anti-DRM publicity hounds, which is of course accurate.