[Taphil]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelamvr6 OK, speaking of Zune and DRM, did anyone see this: Link

Wow, this thread is then much ado over nothing. That's what happen when some guy's blog becomes factual news.

 

[digitalcat]

Bleh... I say it's a step towards a better digital world. At least you can share music with that thing. The main purpose of this function is to lure more people to buy the same music. It's lucky they didn't come up with funny ideas like transferring the song in lower bit-rate than what it was. And for those who get so worked up that Microsoft "chooses the RIAA instead of the consumer", do you really think that it had a choice?

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taphil Wow, this thread is then much ado over nothing. That's what happen when some guy's blog becomes factual news.

You didn't read carefully. That article didn't say that Zune didn't apply DRM. It said that Zune doesn't work with the OLD DRM. Every time a new device comes out, you'll have to buy all your protected music over again, because the DRM schemes will be incompatible. Swell trick, huh?

Is anyone going to be buying anything from the Microsoft Music Store?

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitalcat And for those who get so worked up that Microsoft "chooses the RIAA instead of the consumer", do you really think that it had a choice?

The consumer has a choice. Buy products that don't REQUIRE the use of DRM. Buy music that doesn't carry DRM limitations. Don't support companies that design their products to suit someone other than the end user. Don't let corporations chip away at your fair use rights.

See ya
Steve

 

[NiceCans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot The consumer has a choice. Buy products that don't REQUIRE the use of DRM. Buy music that doesn't carry DRM limitations. Don't support companies that design their products to suit someone other than the end user. Don't let corporations chip away at your fair use rights. See ya Steve

^ Word!

 

[digitalcat]

Some more info about the 3 day/3 play limitation from Zune Insider blog:
Quote:

Zune to Zune Sharing doesn’t change the DRM on a song, and it doesn’t impose DRM restrictions on any files that are unprotected. If you have a song - say that you got “free and clear” - Zune to Zune Sharing won’t apply any DRM to that song. The 3-day/3-play limitation is built into the device, and it only applies on the Zune device: when you receive a song in your Inbox, the file remains unchanged. After 3 plays or 3 days, you can no longer play the song; however, you can still see a listing of the songs with the associated metadata.

So I guess you could probably find a way to move the file out of the player? Otherwise it would be plainly dumb to let the file stay in the player after 3 days.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Zune to Zune Sharing doesn’t change the DRM on a song, and it doesn’t impose DRM restrictions on any files that are unprotected. If you have a song - say that you got “free and clear” - Zune to Zune Sharing won’t apply any DRM to that song. The 3-day/3-play limitation is built into the device, and it only applies on the Zune device: when you receive a song in your Inbox, the file remains unchanged.

Hey, you trying to ruin the fun..? Now everyone may have to stop ranting...

 

[digitalcat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic Hey, you trying to ruin the fun..? Now everyone may have to stop ranting...

As long as it's Microsoft, there will always be people ranting. I just hope they make more well-informed rants,

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic Hey, you trying to ruin the fun..? Now everyone may have to stop ranting...

DRM is DRM, whether the limitation is applied to the hardware of the file. This guy is talking out of both sides of his mouth. It's clear that this isn't just a guy who works on Zune with a blog. This is a marketing tool for Zune and the Microsoft lawyers are the ones drafting the posts. Good luck trying to damage control this one guys.

Joshua O'Madadhain asked these basic questions in the comments...

if A sends song S to B…

…can B then send S to C, or to anyone else (including A)?

…can B copy S to their hard drive (or some other device)?

…if S can’t be played after 3 days/plays, does it automatically delete itself (and just leave the song metadata in the DB) or does it continue to take up space? (this is obviously especially relevant if S can’t be synched to HD, etc.)

…can A send S to B again 3 days later, or can A only ever send S to B once?

…can D send S to B again 3 days later, or can B only ever receive S once?

Any bets whether the puppet blogger is going to be willing answer any of these?

 

[Taphil]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot You didn't read carefully. That article didn't say that Zune didn't apply DRM. It said that Zune doesn't work with the OLD DRM. Every time a new device comes out, you'll have to buy all your protected music over again, because the DRM schemes will be incompatible. Swell trick, huh? Is anyone going to be buying anything from the Microsoft Music Store? See ya Steve

You're right, I didn't read it. It was supposed to be this article that I was referring to http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060920-7788.html

Unprotected songs aren't wrapped in DRM.

Songs that are shared wirelessly have limits. BFD. Just plug the dang thing into the other person's computer, get (steal) all the music you want off the computer without restrictions, and pretend it looks like an iPod (because that's the way an iPod works too).

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Every time a new device comes out, you'll have to buy all your protected music over again, because the DRM schemes will be incompatible.

OK, we're really getting out there now... where did you read any confirmation (meaning a credible site, not infantile blogger rants) that Zune buyers will not be able to play tracks previoulsy downloaded from Plays-For-Sure or other compatible sites? It seems impossible to believe that any company could possibly want to do that... such an act would piss off consumers to the extent that it would destroy the market for downloaded music, and nobody in the industry wants that.

.

 

[mkozlows]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic OK, we're really getting out there now... where did you read any confirmation (meaning a credible site, not infantile blogger rants) that Zune buyers will not be able to play tracks previoulsy downloaded from Plays-For-Sure or other compatible sites? .

Cesar Menendez (Microsoft PR guy) has written that on the zuneinsider.com site multiple times. The official press releases from Microsoft don't say it explicitly, but do state that the Zune supports "unprotected WMA", which is tantamount to the same thing.

If it kills the idea of "buying" DRMed music, good. The pity is, a good chunk of the subscription services (which is the only sensible use of DRM) will go down, too, now that PFS is legacy.

 

[Wetzilla]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot The consumer has a choice. Buy products that don't REQUIRE the use of DRM. Buy music that doesn't carry DRM limitations. Don't support companies that design their products to suit someone other than the end user. Don't let corporations chip away at your fair use rights. See ya Steve

The Zune doesn't REQUIRE the use of DRM at all. You can put your non DRM files on the player, and it does not add DRM to these files. We don't know anything about the DRM thats added to the files purchased in the Zune store, but I know they want to do something where if you purchase a song there, you can download it whenever you want, and to multiple devices. Such as your xbox 360, or a cellphone running live anywhere. As opposed to itunes, where you can only put it on 4 computers/media devices, and once you download it, thats it. If you lose the file you can't get it back. I'd say Microsoft is definintly trying to look out for the consumer.

The other zune thread is dead, so I'm making a non-drm zune post here. Anyone else see that gizmodo is reporting that the zune will be 229.99 on launch? If thats true I'm definintly getting one.

 

[nelamvr6]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic OK, we're really getting out there now... where did you read any confirmation (meaning a credible site, not infantile blogger rants) .

OK, you are putting your credibility at risk.

The inquirer? An infantile bloger's rants?

The Inquirer is one of the best, if not the best IT info site in existence.

This is the site that predicted Carley's ouster. This is the site that predicted that Dell would begin to sell AMD systems this year. This is the site that broke the HP bugging scandal. This is the site that predicted that AMD would buy ATI.

There is not enough space here to list all of the Inquirer's scoops.

If you want to know what's going on in the IT world, you read the Inquirer. If you read it in the Inquirer, you had better at least listen. If Charlie Demerjian or Mike McGee write it, you can take it to the bank.

Don't let the fact that they have a sense of humor (humour for our UK friends

) lead you to think that they are not serious journalists.

 

[ILikeMusic]

All I can say is that if that information is correct then it would indeed be an incredibly stupid move. I'm not among those who would ever consider paying for anything with DRM (that I can't break

) but why would anyone buy material that may or may not work with the next generation device? Stink like that would probably impact iTunes as well as consumers would think that Apple might 'change its mind' one day as well.

I completely agree with the "If it kills the idea of buying DRMed music, good" thought... I just can't imagaine that they would be stupid enough to do it. Consumer gullibility isn't endless... or just maybe it is...