[Wetzilla]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pds6 Xpander says: 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!

Microsoft is not wrapping every file on your zune with DRM. They are wrapping every file you send wirelessly from your zune to another zune. Xpander was right, without this it effectively creats a massive p2p system that would not be able to controlled or shut down in any way. The only solution besides putting drm on wirelessly transferred files would be to limit the wireless transfer to only songs purchased in the zune store. Personally I find their solution better than just disabling it for all non drm files.

Quote:

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".

So Microsoft showed it to some bloggers, so that makes what they say automatically valid?
Quote:

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

Now who's name calling.

Quote:

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 . . .

Here's the problem with that, it's not illegal to drive over 55 in some places. Speed limits are different in different states. There are tracks where you can drive as fast as you want. And some car manufacturers do limit the speed in their cars. It also isn't illegal to feed people fattening foods. It is illegal to take a song you own and send it to someone who has not paid for it.
Quote:

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.

And the reality is that Microsoft putting DRM around files you send to another Zune wirelessly is not going to affect you at all. It was a necessary legal step they had to take to allow this file sharing. If you don't like it, don't send songs to other people. How you can bash this and not be upset by the itunes store that tells you how many players you can put a song on and how many computers you can use it on, while not allowing you to redownload something you allready paid for if your hard drive should fail is beyond me.

 

[bigshot]

The reason they are doing this is painfully clear. They are catering to the RIAA's excessive demands so they can get cooperation from the big record companies in stocking their online music store.

Here is the problem with that... DRM doesn't just lock up copyrighted material... it locks up public domain and fair use material as well as files that the creator has flagged to be freely distributed. Microsoft is trading away our fair use rights in exchange for a friendly relationship with the recording industry. That pretty clearly tells me that Microsoft cares more about the RIAA than it does its own customers.

Secondly, the 3 day/3 play has no basis in copyright law. One play on one day is the same as 10 plays in a year when it comes to something either being fair use or a copyright violation. By implementing their 3 day/3 play limitations, Microsoft is WRITING ITS OWN EXCEPTIONS TO COPYRIGHT LAW. I thought we had a government with checks and balances to do stuff like that.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xpander 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?

That is the user's responsibility, not the DAP's and not Microsofts. We don't put restrictions on cars accellerating simply because they could be used to plow through a plate glass window at a Starbucks. Those kinds of things happen all the time, and we hold the perpetrator responsible. We don't try to get Honda to disable accelleration for all drivers.

See ya
Steve

P.S. You totally missed the point of the Viral DRM headline. Microsoft was touting the ability of its wifi feature to create viral word of mouth for new music. It certainly isn't going to create a viral anything when it kills the file dead after three plays and doesn't allow the recipient to pass it on.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder 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...

Think about it... if you were going to put a wrapper on something, would you do it in the player itself, or would you just apply it in the software that loads the music on the player and make the host player immune to the DRM?

Even if they don't apply DRM to the files on the hard drive of the player, do you think they will allow wired USB2 downloads with computers, or any sort of download off the DAP at all? Not bloody likely! This means that the ONLY way to get files out of your player without hacking or third party software is to apply a DRM.

Why isn't Microsoft using the CC license tag to detect fair use music files? Because if they did, EAC and all the other ripping programs would allow you to turn on that flag with every rip you make, regardless of whether you owned the rights to do that or not.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy 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.

Those foul mouthed publicity hounds are talking in ALL CAPS to alert you to the chipping away of your Fair Use provisions in the US copyright law.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wetzilla And the reality is that Microsoft putting DRM around files you send to another Zune wirelessly is not going to affect you at all. It was a necessary legal step they had to take to allow this file sharing.

There is no law requiring them to do that. That was a back room deal between them and the companies who will be supplying their online music store.

See ya
Steve

 

[Wetzilla]

So it was necessary for them to get music into their store. And the ipod doesn't allow you to remove music off it either.

 

[majid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wetzilla And the ipod doesn't allow you to remove music off it either.

With iTunes 7 (released this week), you can now transfer songs from an iPod to a computer without having to go through hoops. So Apple has been going in the right direction (probably because their increasing market share puts them in a stronger position to reject the RIAA's diktat).

Fairplay is still evil, but in a way Apple's refusal to interoperate with other DRM keeps the pro-DRM camp fragmented, which is good for consumers (evil fights evil). Just say no to DRM, rip CDs to formats like WAV, lossless or MP3 that are not encumbered with CRAP.

 

[volcomjerk]

The WiFi feature is dumb that's all. Who the hell are you going to transfer music to when 99% of the users are using iPods? You gonna go convert everyone to use a Zune just so you can use the DRM'ed WiFi feature?

I'd rather email a file to my friend or even use www.yousendit.com

I really like the way the Zune looks and the big screen but there's several things Microsoft did to shoot themselves in the foot:

1. No pricing details (mostly because they (microsoft) were caught off guard with Apple's grasp on the market and being able to sell an iPod for under $250.)

2. No technical specs (is microsoft afraid to release ****** specs? with a 3" screen like that and being able to play video in such a small body battery life can't be great)

3. Viral DRM / WiFi Gimmick Feature - It all looks good until people realize no one cares for this feature and it's just an excuse to say to the iPod "Hey look I have a feature you don't!" However this feature requires use of another Zune good luck finding many people with one.

4. No PlayForSure??? That's the most dumb thing I've ever heard. PlayForSure was Microsofts idea to begin with and now they are throwing it in the trash. That's bad news for people who have been using PlayForSure. No subscription service has ever been as successful as iTunes.

5. They rushed this thing out. Microsoft will only be able to stay in the game because of their $$$$ just like the xbox they bought enough time to stand out in the crowd. However, the gaming industry is different and I don't think they'll have the same effect on the DAP industry.

I think it's a beautiful DAP but I don't think they thought this thing out. I don't think microsoft knows what the consumers want in a DAP. Apple knows they don't have to rush a widescreen ipod out because they know that market isn't ripe enough yet plus i think Apple is destroying Microsoft in an area they wanted to really take over (Home Entertainment). As soon as the iTV is out say goodbye to Windows Media Center.

I think Apple is 1 or 2 more steps ahead of the game and have a much better roadmap laid out.

 

[zip22]

Quote:

Originally Posted by majid With iTunes 7 (released this week), you can now transfer songs from an iPod to a computer without having to go through hoops. So Apple has been going in the right direction (probably because their increasing market share puts them in a stronger position to reject the RIAA's diktat).

thats only with itunes store content.

you can get any songs off the ipod pretty easily using third party software, or just finding the files in explorer (they are just hidden and re-named)

 

[Xpander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot The reason they are doing this is painfully clear. They are catering to the RIAA's excessive demands so they can get cooperation from the big record companies in stocking their online music store. Here is the problem with that... DRM doesn't just lock up copyrighted material... it locks up public domain and fair use material as well as files that the creator has flagged to be freely distributed. Microsoft is trading away our fair use rights in exchange for a friendly relationship with the recording industry. That pretty clearly tells me that Microsoft cares more about the RIAA than it does its own customers. Secondly, the 3 day/3 play has no basis in copyright law. One play on one day is the same as 10 plays in a year when it comes to something either being fair use or a copyright violation. By implementing their 3 day/3 play limitations, Microsoft is WRITING ITS OWN EXCEPTIONS TO COPYRIGHT LAW. I thought we had a government with checks and balances to do stuff like that. See ya Steve

Again, where has there been any documentation that the Zune actually places this DRM on any of your files except the actual copy that's being transferred out through wi-fi to another Zune? What exactly about this wi-fi DRM is preventing a user who has just transfered his/her own song to someone via wi-fi to turn around and transfer a file to that same recipient's computer which isn't DRMed? So far, everything that I've been reading mentioned absolutely NOTHING, which limits the DRM application SOLELY to the wi-fi transmission.

Perhaps if one doesn't want to injure themselves when entering a house, one will take an extra 2 steps and walk through the door that's always been open and not take the faster route of throwing themselves through the window.

Where Microsoft begins to exercise forced DRM implementation on all files put on its player, there may faults be found. So far there has been no evidence that this is the case and this has been conveniently ignored by pretty much every single person who has been slanting MS for this measure. Microsoft is catering to RIAA and the record companies' excessive demands? Then (here are some caps to accentuate the point) WHAT THE HELL HAS APPLE BEEN DOING THESE PAST 3 YEARS WITH ITS FULL BLOWN DRM DRIVEN MUSIC STORE?! Where's the hate for Apple?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot That is the user's responsibility, not the DAP's and not Microsofts. We don't put restrictions on cars accellerating simply because they could be used to plow through a plate glass window at a Starbucks. Those kinds of things happen all the time, and we hold the perpetrator responsible. We don't try to get Honda to disable accelleration for all drivers. See ya Steve

Well you're absolutely correct, except you conveniently left out the part where traffic laws can be legally enforced and a potentially Zune-to-Zune network cannot be. This question has been raised in my last post: How exactly do you exercise control over a portable, affordable wi-fi driven p2p network that's completely free of geographical and major network bindings without hindering the end-user (ie. isolating and punishing the perpetrators)? Since pds6 was so wildly insulted by my name calling, I would love for you or anyone else to kindly explain how one would...nay, MIGHT go about placing enforceable legal restrictions on such a phoenomenon without, let's say, violating major rights such as privacy. This really is something that has utterly escaped my obviously limited imagination, and I would love to see some ideas as how it can be done.

No need for specific answers, a ballpark description will do.

Quote:

P.S. You totally missed the point of the Viral DRM headline. Microsoft was touting the ability of its wifi feature to create viral word of mouth for new music. It certainly isn't going to create a viral anything when it kills the file dead after three plays and doesn't allow the recipient to pass it on.

While that may be the case with Microsoft, the article specifically used the term to describe the DRM exactly twice in the article. In fact, it's the writer, not microsoft, that made the suggestion that the music should be spread "virally". First instance of viral used being:

Quote:

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. After three listens the poor song dies a horrible DRM enabled death. Talk about innovation.

This is also, might I note, a piss poor and completely false usage of the adjective "Viral", which inherently means infectious. This is also something that I explained and pointed out in detail in my last post. I'm confident that I've read everything correctly and in context, but you're welcome to find the instances where I'm proven wrong.

So Microsoft either creates a player that doesn't have the wi-fi feature and gets slanted for being another pointless player, or implements a controlled variety of the feature and gets called the violator of consumer rights. What a tough yet completely irrational crowd.

 

[Xpander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pds6 Let's see how my reading comprehension is:

ok

Quote:

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'm actually telling you that even our basic simple concepts of what property is is being changed due to the way that technology is changing information transfer. This means that what might be legal or illegal today concerning intellectual property and copyrights might not be so tomorrow, ergo the reference to IP law. Also, as wodgy brought up, it seems like MS isn't the one who's violating the license. I'm openly not as informed about the licenses as some, but his point seems valid...I can't say.

Quote:

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!

So don't use the wi-fi feature. That wasn't hard, no? As someone mentioned before, hardware DRM (way worse than Zune's wi-fi DRM, btw) is already being conceptualized and planned. Maybe you should worry more about that.

Oh, and by the way, where is it indicated that MS encoded DRM on the music that's stored on your player (pre wi-fi transfer)?

Quote:

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".

So what gets MS the big scarlet A is the fact that they demo'ed their new player to bloggers?

Ok, thanks for that.

Quote:

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

I'm a registered independent, but the American zeitgeist thanks you for suggesting that I'm politically polarized.

Quote:

On to your four paragraph: 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 . . .

Read my response to bigshot, kindly respond there.

Quote:

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.

You can prove me wrong by answering my response to bigshot.

No, cries of falling down a non-existent/inconsequential slippery slope is looking me in the face. Reality is looking...well, read this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by pds6 I believe your second and third paragraph addresses two issues.*snip* My post is madeup of "a whole lot of uninformed adjective-laden blogger speak."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xpander From the medialoper article, all I see is a whole lot of uninformed adjective-laden blogger speak

 

[pds6]

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Hamlet, Act 3, scene 2, line 230

Xpander, I GET IT. We just don't agree.

You believe Big Business must be protected from file sharing 14 year olds. I see the world otherwise.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

You believe Big Business must be protected from file sharing 14 year olds.

Actually, that would be the US Congress. And if people don't stop focusing on brand bashing over the real issues then I'm afraid we will all get what we deserve... and then it won't matter who manufactures what.

.

 

[Xpander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pds6 "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Hamlet, Act 3, scene 2, line 230 Xpander, I GET IT. We just don't agree. You believe Big Business must be protected from file sharing 14 year olds. I see the world otherwise.

Actually, no I don't, as I'm an active practitioner of try-then-buy school of music purchasing.

Here's the line of thinking: MS has the option to introduce a wi-fi transfer feature on their DAP. With the potential p2p network that such a device could create as I mentioned (and let's face it, not one RIAA or MS executive who knows about this feature is oblivious to its potentials), the company now on this feature set has the option to implement one of two executions:

Zune without wi-fi feature, or
Zune with wi-fi feature limited by DRM application

This is all that it really comes down to, because MS would be committing suicide by enabling unrestricted wi-fi sharing with the entirety of RIAA watching from from afar. They either establish a relationship with RIAA or face them in court; Apple knew this, and so does MS. Now based on the complaints raised by the blogger elite and many people in this thread, it would actually be a bigger violation of consumer rights to enable the latter execution which actually provides the end-user with more music distribution options (albeit the said additional option is limited in versatility). You see where all this BS talk about viral DRM application begins to falls flat on its face?

I don't really give a rat's ass about the Zune, but more competition is good. That people who don't have a clue of the potentials of this player would slant it because they don't understand the options and then trying to rationalize it is quite disappointing and/or hilarious.