Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents Media Music The Internet Technology

Microsoft Patents Process To "Unpirate" Music 241

Posted by Zonk
from the very-merry-unbirthday-to-you dept.
Unequivocal writes "A new Wired magazine blog entry shows that Microsoft has patented a technique for preventing and reversing music piracy at the hardware level. 'Microsoft and Apple are thinking along the same lines when it comes to enabling users to copy music between their wireless devices. Certain cellphones already allow you to [transfer music] via Bluetooth file transfer, but Microsoft's patented idea would take the concept further, by allowing users to trade MP3s that may have come from file sharing networks to one another, expiring the song on the recipient's device after three plays, unless the user pays Microsoft a fee in order to continue to listen to the track, with a percentage going to the person who provided the song. As the abstract puts it, "even [the] resale of pirated media content [can] benefit... the copyright holder."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Patents Process To "Unpirate" Music

Comments Filter:
  • A giant leap (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cthulu_mt (1124113)
    The next big step in DRM is a giant boot in the ass. Thanks bill.
    • by jcenters (570494)
      Actually, I think it's pretty clever. It solves the sharing/piracy conundrum that holds features like these back while simultaneously making piracy profitable and even somewhat legitimate.

      Of course it will be horribly implemented, and I want nothing to do with it.

      But it's a nice idea.
    • by chgros (690878)
      Or a boot... stomping on a face... forever...
  • by KingSkippus (799657) * on Friday July 13, 2007 @05:48PM (#19853569) Homepage Journal

    From what I'm reading, it looks like this only applies to device-to-device transfer, a la the Zune's "squirt" feature.

    Seriously, in the grand scheme of things, with people downloading tracks from p2p networks and ripping their own CDs, is this going to make an impact whatsoever?

    I think not. It sounds like yet another goofy scheme to "enable" (the RIAA's word that roughly translates to "disable" in English) what consumers can do with their players.

    • i can imagine that the future of music delivery is a perpetually untethered device. one of the interesting things about the iphone is that - AFAIK - you still need to synch/dock in order to load music - you're still tied to the desktop.

      the telcos are positioned to sell music - but the devices/phones are not ideal. form factors and battery life are prime issues - along with telco lock-in that prevents getting the best deal/price.

      this is one of those things that doesn't seem like an issue now but will be - wh
    • The perfect excuse (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DrYak (748999)
      We've been exchanging tunes, photos video clips and whatever over bluetooth between phones and PDAs in Europe, *for AGES*.

      Microsoft's patent is now the perfect excuse :
      - No sorry, there can't be any piracy prevention over bluetooth for devices from manufacturer X, because manufacturer X sells also their products in the USA, and Microsoft has a monopoly on such anti-piracy implements. Making an anticopy measures on top of bluetooth would cut them from that (lucrative) market because of patent infringement.

      Or
    • by twitter (104583) on Friday July 13, 2007 @06:36PM (#19853983) Homepage Journal

      Seriously, in the grand scheme of things, with people downloading tracks from p2p networks and ripping their own CDs, is this going to make an impact whatsoever?

      The impact of this scheme is limited by poor sales of the Zune. While Apple was able to sell half a million iPhones on it's first weekend, Zune missed it's million player target last month. [slashdot.org] People don't want a music player that "squirts" expiring music. Part of the reason is because they don't really care to share their music like the MAFIAA thinks they do. The other part of poor Zune sales is that people want to own, not rent, the music they have. They continue to purchase and rip CDs and that is still the major source of people's music collections despite abundant, legal and free music on line. Because of this, they can put up with iPod's lame sharing capability but think very dimly of Zune's ability to disappear music.

      M$ can keep their crappy patent - no one is going to buy a device that implements it.

      • by RobertM1968 (951074) on Friday July 13, 2007 @08:52PM (#19855301) Homepage Journal

        I'm curious... did anyone really stop to consider if this is to bolster Zune sales?

        Because if so, then they all seem to have missed one major point/possibility that could be going on behind the scenes...

        What if MS is negotiating something with the RIAA? What if the advent of a device like this - that only MS can provide - is the content lock that the RIAA accepts? What if RIAA member companies are thus pressured into not selling to iTunes? (and only to MS and their protected player). What if this is part of MS's attempt at monopoly via patent with the RIAA wholly endorsing them in a way that will cripple the rest of the online music industry?

        Just a thought. It could happen... and what two companies are better suited for each other than Microsoft and the RIAA?

        • What if RIAA member companies are thus pressured into not selling to iTunes? (and only to MS and their protected player). What if this is part of MS's attempt at monopoly via patent with the RIAA wholly endorsing them in a way that will cripple the rest of the online music industry?

          This is silly.

          Every single iPod ownder would be royally pissed. iTunes would premote idie music, as there would be nothing else. RIAA online music sales would disappear completely and piracy would surge.

          Won't happen.

    • by mmeister (862972)
      >> From what I'm reading, it looks like this only applies to device-to-device transfer, a la the Zune's "squirt" feature.

      So, effectively, only about a dozen Zune owners will even run into this thing.

      In all seriousness -- we need LESS, NOT MORE DRM.
  • Never Willingly. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ayanami Rei (621112) * <`moc.liamg' `ta' `imanayar'> on Friday July 13, 2007 @05:49PM (#19853585) Journal
    I would never willingly purchase a device with such a misfeature. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Way to shoot yourselves in the foot, Microsoft and Apple.
    • by suv4x4 (956391)
      I would never willingly purchase a device with such a misfeature. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Way to shoot yourselves in the foot, Microsoft and Apple.

      Yea, they couldn't afford to lose *YOU* as a customer right.

      Don't make the mistake of taking yourself for a perfect example of how most people would react. Right now iPod can't trade wirelessly music at all, and is the most popular player in the world. I'd argue that if the next iPod has crippled sharing ability, compared to this player's completely missin
      • by jedidiah (1196)
        The ipod doesn't have to wirelessly share.

        OTOH, if you cripple wireless sharing like this you rather eliminate it as a useful feature. Wireless sharing could also be used for wireless syncrhonization and distribution within the set of devices that you own yourself and thus should have the right to play any of your music on.

        This just sounds looks like a vampire with a wide enough smile that you just miss seeing the bottoms of his fangs.
    • No wait. Microsoft *Patented* this idea. Now they can use that patent to stop anyone from doing it. Imagine if the RIAA paid off the US government to make this mandatory on all devices, well now there's a barrier.
  • ...but Microsoft's patented idea would take the concept further, by allowing users to trade MP3s that may have come from file sharing networks to one another, expiring the song on the recipient's device after three plays, unless the user pays Microsoft a fee in order to continue to listen to the track,...

    You know what...? I will not bite. I hope [our own] "DVD Jon" will come up with a way to defeat this nonsense.

  • The Microsoft Tax (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MenTaLguY (5483) on Friday July 13, 2007 @05:54PM (#19853635) Homepage
    So, if I've got some Public Domain or CC-licensed songs, they're probably going to fall into the "may have come from file sharing sites" bin.

    "Those are some nice Creative Commons media files you've got there. It'd be a shame if something happened to them..."
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by khephera (1009359) *
      Files from legal, DRM-free download sites like http://www.emusic.com/ [emusic.com] will probably fall into this trap as well.
    • I think it just puts all non-DRM'd files in the bucket of "shame".
    • Yeah, if only the screwed-up "justice" system would allow us to hold Microsoft liable for the violation of CC licenses...

    • by kebes (861706)
      It's even more complicated than that. Most of the Creative Commons licenses explicitly forbid adding DRM to the files. (See FAQ here [creativecommons.org].) So, adding DRM to CC files would be a license violation.

      It's unclear who is actually doing the violating, though. If I transfer a file to you, and our devices conspire to add DRM to the file, who is at fault? Is it me? Is it you? (We should have known how the devices operate, and it is our responsibility from ever using them in conjunction with CC files?) Or is the device
      • by MenTaLguY (5483)
        As far as I can figure, the only legally sound thing (as users) is simply not to trade the media in the DRMed form. In practice they'll probably do so anyway.

        If you wanted to put legal pressure on the manufacturer, I imagine you'd need to use some more indirect means than suing them for copyright violation, again because the user isn't being forced to use the manufacturer's devices.
  • by HungWeiLo (250320) on Friday July 13, 2007 @05:55PM (#19853649)
    NES lol
    NES I download something from Napster
    NES And the same guy I downloaded it from starts downloading it from me when I'm done
    NES I message him and say "What are you doing? I just got that from you"
    NES "getting my song back fucker"
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 13, 2007 @05:56PM (#19853661)

    How do they expect to distinguish between music that I have legally ripped from purchased CDs and music that has been downloaded from a p2p filesharing network illegally? Also, who gets paid if I decide to trade my own material?

    I for one have no interest in using proprietary Microsoft encoding formats to bugger up my ripped files, nor do I have any interest in using a portable device that will only play said formats.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Duhavid (677874)
      They have an incentive not to care.
    • by Grishnakh (216268)
      It's not legal to rip music from purchased CDs and transfer it to your portable player; you just have to buy additional copies from online music services. Why is it illegal? Because the RIAA says so. Remember, in the USA, because of English Common Law, what's "legal" isn't determined by legislators or codified laws, it's determined by court cases and decisions. So if you disagree and think it's legal, it's up to you to prove it by winning in court against the RIAA. Good luck with that, unless you have
      • by mark-t (151149)
        It's perfectly legal to rip music from purchased CD's in some parts of the world. Canada for example, in its Copyright law explicitly exempts personal and private use copying of audio works from copyright infringement.
      • by jedidiah (1196)
        You can start by telling us anyone that the RIAA has even attempted to sue for engaging in downloads of pirated music. You can then follow up by telling us who the RIAA has even attempted to sue for personal copying.

        The RIAA can make up any shit they like about anyone they like and proceed to bankrupt them.

        You can be an Amish minor from a strict sect with no electricty, no CD or other audio player and no CD or other audio media at all and the RIAA could still harras you through barratry.

        Who the RIAA does su
  • No big deal (Score:3, Funny)

    by qweqwe321 (1097441) <qweqwe321@lyDEGAScos.com minus painter> on Friday July 13, 2007 @05:56PM (#19853665)
    They already tried a more primitive version of this with the Zune, and we all know how well THAT one worked out.
  • So now our computers are going to delete files we got from P2P networks for us. So much for using my own system with it spying on me.

    Bill Gates new nickname:
    The Man with the Palladium Gun.
  • by CoJeff (1015665) on Friday July 13, 2007 @06:08PM (#19853755)
    I see alot about sharing music and if the person who go the shared file will be able to buy it. However I'm a huge live music fan and download stuff all the time. I'd say over 85% of what I have can't be bought in a a store or online store. So why should it be limited to 3 plays/3 days???
  • by John Sokol (109591) on Friday July 13, 2007 @06:10PM (#19853771) Homepage Journal
    I have seen these Automatic Identification of MP3 files mess up often.
    Even in scenarios where I record some of my own voice,just me just speaking into a mic and recording it, these systems have misidentified it as some pop song and shows an album cover of this mistakenly identified song.

    So it's just a matter of time before they will try to force me to pay to listen to these recording that I make myself when ever this wonderful scheme messes up.

    Only a truly evil mind could invent such a scheme.
  • isn't this patent supposed to be sold to the record industry that they can profit from it?

    Sounds like extortion to me, that MS is putting a tax on users for property that they do not own.... sort like what they are doing with claims they own IP in linux and offering protection for a price.

    MS the new techno mob?
    • by 3seas (184403)
      Perhaps this hows the essence of MS mentality.... profit off the works of others.

      Proof they invent nothing new.
  • What great insight... they know if you give the customer what they want, they'll come back and buy more. Customers have been begging them, please, put DRM on our music collection that we already purchased and was in DRM'd. I know that DRM is actually DCE and that it enables me more better!

    That's why Vista and The Zune are such great hits. The customer was begging for them.
  • Media Player already asks me if I want to "purchase" the mp3 Im playing... even when it came from my own cds.
  • why not have a pyramid of profit up the distribution chain...
  • by gillbates (106458) on Friday July 13, 2007 @06:35PM (#19853953) Homepage Journal

    unless the user pays Microsoft a fee in order to continue to listen to the track, with a percentage going to the person who provided the song.

    So, if I read this right, Microsoft has patented making money from copyright infringement of someone else's work.

    • If I was the artist, I wouldn't be happy to settle for a percentage of the sale. As the owner of a copyrighted work, I'm entitled to the full sale price regardless of what Microsoft and others may believe.
    • As a user, I'd be really angry if this "technology" decided that songs for which I had paid, or worse, recorded myself (as in, me being the artist) were invalid after 3 plays.
    • I'm pretty sure that any implementation of the patented invention would give rise to contributory infringement claims against the maker. The whole idea behind this is to encourage others to commit copyright infringement in order to benefit the patent holder, not the artist.
    • Microsoft has patented making money from copyright infringement of someone else's work

      Hey, it's Microsoft. They make money from other peoples' ideas. That's what they've always done.

  • Ha! If that's not an iPod Nano, I don't know what it is.

    Why not a Zune?
  • Yep, I download MP3s from Usenet and BitTorrent.

    That's because I listen to pretty obscure (on the whole) rock & blues music that doesn't get any airplay - so I use the downloads to preview an album. If I like it, I buy it because I'm old fashioned and like a nice shiny disc to play loud on a reasonable hifi - if I don't like it, I delete the MP3s.

    I will NEVER pay for downloaded music and the stuff I download for free is not something I necessary play immediately - it might sit on my hard disk for a

  • by GeekTwoDotOh (1127835) on Friday July 13, 2007 @08:00PM (#19854855)
    This one is actually a patent application, not a patent. Also this is part of the Peer to patent pilot, so there is a chance to give feedback on it before it is approved.
    The p2p discussion is online right here [peertopatent.org]

    So anyone can respond to this...there is still time!
  • While others continues to do their best to attract users away from Microsoft, Microsoft seems to be doing its damnedest to push it's own users towards other solutions. Their behavior reminds me of what Bush said after winning his next election: "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it." The only difference is that Dubya knows his days are numbered, so he can afford to misbehave. Microsoft may outlast him, but at this rate it may not be by more than a few years.
  • I just renamed all my mp3's happy_birthday. your move microsoft!
  • I will just keep transfering the music between my 4 divices before the three uses is up.
  • Over my dead body... errr dead ipod.. errr cold dead fingers... you get the idea ...
  • 1) Find users for the Zune
    2) ??????
    3) Profit!!!!

    once they figure out step 1, they are set!
  • GPLv3? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by alexgieg (948359) <alexgieg@gmail.com> on Saturday July 14, 2007 @12:02AM (#19856301) Homepage
    Just out of curiosity: does someone know what are the legal ramifications of using a Zune to send a GPLv3 licensed MP3 to another Zune? Isn't the edited version a derivative work made by Microsoft? As a result, don't the anti-DRM and anti-patent clauses take effect, causing Microsoft to both auto-license their DRM technology as well as all the patents covering Zune? After all, I instructed the device to send a file, and it was Microsoft who, instead of doing as I instructed, choose to change it. Or at least, that's how it seems to me.

APL hackers do it in the quad.

Working...