Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Zune Won't Play Old DRM Infected Files

Posted by Zonk on Tue Sep 19, 2006 09:28 AM
from the do-as-we-do-not-as-we-say dept.
Spritzer writes "According to the EFF, the new Zune portable media player from Microsoft won't play files infected with the old Microsoft DRM. It seems that all of the 'PlaysforSure' media that has been sold and is currently being sold will not play on the Zune. In addition, Microsoft has now advocated violating the DMCA in order to transfer files to the player. Microsoft Zune architect J Allard was quoted as saying there's 'Lots of DVD ripping software out there that encodes to those formats, so the most popular formats out there, whether it's MPEG-4 or H.264, we'll support those.'" ZDNet offers up additional commentary on this revelation.

Related Stories

[+] Ask Slashdot: Zune - Microsoft Killer or Next Apple Victim? 159 comments
prophet asks: "Now that we have all seen the new Microsoft 'Zune', and the suits over at Microsoft have seen fit to inform us of a whole line of 'Zune' related hardware and software products, my real question is, will Microsoft be able to de-throne the ever growing iPod phenom? With the current confirmed 'Zune' prototype photos dispersed throughout the net, it is hard to see how Microsoft has thought that the current design of the 'Zune' is in fact enough in its current form for users to be pleased aesthetically, and at the same time impressed by ease of use. At the current moment, rumors are circulating of a redesign of the controls on Microsoft's part before a complete release. With the current aesthetical design of the Zune, will it appeal to the masses in the way the iPod did? More importantly, does it appeal to you?
[+] Microsoft Launches the Zune 472 comments
Doug-W writes to mention an Engadget post about Microsoft's launch of the Zune. From the article: "Not a lot of surprises in the specs department, but they've confirmed the basics we've known for a while, like WiFi, 30GB of HDD, built-in FM, a 3-inch screen and the basic music, pictures and video playback. They also finally let slip the screen res -- an unsurprising QVGA -- and some better news on the codec front: the Zune supports h.264, MP3, AAC and WMA. As for ballyhoo, wireless Zune-to-Zune sharing is where the real action is at, and it works pretty much like we've been hearing: you can share a full-length track with a friend, and they've got three times to listen to it over a three day period, after which they can flag the song for purchase on the Zune Marketplace -- unless they're an unlimited 'Zune Pass' subscriber, of course."
[+] Hardware: Zune's Wireless Almost Totally Worthless 442 comments
mikesd81 writes to mention an article at Engadget exploring what the Zune's wireless is good for. It turns out that, at least for now, that's not much. From the article: "You can search for and find other Zunes nearby. You can send songs / albums for the 3 x 3 trial. Songs past the three days / listens are deleted at next sync, but catalogued on your PC for record-keeping should you want to purchase them later. No word on whether Microsoft is going to keep track of which files are traded. You can send and receive image files for 'unlimited viewing.' (Oh, so copyrighted images aren't worth DRMing?) You can't: Connect to the internet, Download songs directly from the Zune store via WiFi, Sync to your computer via WiFi."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • DRM by nickyx (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:30AM
    • Re:DRM (Score:5, Interesting)

      by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:32AM (#16137619)
      You would think that cases like this would illustrate to the world that DRM is an inanely stupid idea that doesn't serve consumers. Maybe when a company like Microsoft tells it's users that they have to break the law in order to view media they purchased, Congress should consider repealing the law.

      This was bound to happen. Let's see if anything good comes of it.

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:DRM by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:36AM
        • Re:DRM by beckerist (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:29AM
        • Re:DRM by mkiwi (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @11:01AM
      • Re:DRM (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sukotto (122876) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:50AM (#16138189)
        I don't think the people who make the laws care about the consumers very much. I suspect they care more about the large companies and lobbyists that donate money and perks.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:DRM (Score:5, Interesting)

        Maybe when a company like Microsoft tells it's users that they have to break the law in order to view media they purchased, Congress should consider repealing the law.

        I'm not sure he's advocating breaking any law, including the DMCA. He just maybe has a little different interpretation of the law than some. But neither his interpretation, nor the interpretation of those on the other side of the fence has actually been tested in court to my knowledge.

        The DMCA makes a specific exception to itself for fair use provisions. In essence, it says that if you previously had a right to do something under existing copyright law, you still have a right to do that thing. What the DMCA does is ensure that DRM is protected against those trying to break existing copyright law. It says "if you break DRM for the purposes of infringing copyright, then you are breaking the law." (The fair use exception comes after the actual restrictions, but you have to read everything together to know what the law itself actually is. I'm convinced some people just stop reading once they've read the restrictions.) But since fair use is codified into copyright law, you're not breaking the law by breaking DRM. At least, that would have to be J. Allard's interpretation of the DMCA.

        The ZDNet article says the DMCA makes certain exceptions, "none of which apply here." That's not necessarily true. The author is apparently assuming that breaking DRM to move your DVD's from disc to Zune or your PlaysForSure files from one device to another would not be covered under fair use provisions of copyright law. He may or may not be right, but the Supreme Court has in the past used format-shifting as an example of fair use, going all the way back to the Betamax decision. (The examples listed as fair use in the law itself are just that, examples. They do not encompass all potential fair uses.)

        The DMCA is no doubt a draconian law. But a) it has not really been fully tested in court yet, mainly because the individual users it most directly affects don't have the money to pursue a lengthy court case, and b) it is open to as much interpretation as the fair use provision in existing copyright law.

        The long and the short of it is I think this whole Zune thing is a big fiasco for Microsoft, but I don't necessarily agree that J. Allard is telling people to break the law.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:DRM by Ethan Allison (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @01:45PM
      • Re:DRM by Beyond_GoodandEvil (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @11:24AM
        • Re:DRM (Score:4, Insightful)

          by indifferent children (842621) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @12:30PM (#16139009)
          You are not entitled to pay the raw cost of blank media.

          You missed the point. Apparently, in some jurisdictions, media companies are entitled to a chunk of my money, when I buy CDRs to back-up my data. In other words, anything that you can bribe/bully your legislators into, becomes an entitilement. If we can get the laws changed, to outlaw DRM, then we will be 'entitled' to DRM-free content.

          [ Parent ]
          • Re:DRM by DrDitto (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @01:02PM
            • Re:DRM by indifferent children (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @01:12PM
              • Re:DRM by DrDitto (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @01:16PM
                • Re:DRM by GeffDE (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @02:36PM
              • Re:DRM by IpalindromeI (Score:2) Wednesday September 20 2006, @11:55AM
        • Re:DRM by timster (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @02:06PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:DRM by Kiaser Zohsay (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @11:33AM
      • Re:DRM (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mrchaotica (681592) * <<mrchaotica> <at> <yahoo.com>> on Tuesday September 19 2006, @12:23PM (#16138950)
        You are not entitled to DRM-free content.

        Oh I'm not, eh? Tell me then, what gives content providers the "right" to use DRM?

        It sure as Hell isn't copyright law, because that exists in order to enlarge the Public Domain, for the benefit of the public!

        There's a common misconception that information "belongs" to whoever thinks it up. The fact is, though, that it doesn't. It never has. Copyright law in the United States -- until recently -- reflected this, from the Constitution on down. It's only been after extensive lobbying by the RIAA etc. over the past few decades that opinion has changed. I can only hope it changes back before we all forget that we're the ones with an inherent right to our culture and become "information serfs!"

        [ Parent ]
        • Re:DRM by DrDitto (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @01:05PM
          • Re:DRM by bickerdyke (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @01:33PM
            • Re:DRM by DrDitto (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @01:37PM
              • Re:DRM by bickerdyke (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @02:06PM
            • Re:DRM by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @01:42PM
          • Re:DRM (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Taevin (850923) * on Tuesday September 19 2006, @02:48PM (#16140194)
            Obviously you share the misconception mrchaotica was referring to. As human beings we possess all rights. Just as you have the right to produce something, I have the right to take that work and do whatever I want with it. Obviously, that concept has serious implications and is hard to stomach for most people. Thus, we have society, the rules of which are intended to improve life for all who participate in it. We temporarily forfeit our right to the work of others in the hope that it will encourage them to produce more, further enhancing society. The relevant section of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution:
            To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
            The key word there is "securing." We've given the government the power to secure the work of authors and inventors from ourselves. The second important phrase is "limited times" which is where most of us "entitlement", free-software-loving, driving-poor-ol'-Rowling-into-poverty evil "pirates" have our problem. The "limited time" is rapidly becoming not-so-limited. It's currently at some ridiculous number of years after the person who is supposed to be benefiting from the protection has already died. That seems to me to be fairly contradictory to the original goal of the clause: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts." Beyond that, there is also the DMCA which eliminates many of the rights we have specifically protected from copyright law (see Sections 107-122 of Title 17 of the United States Code).

            I agree with and support the original idea codified in the Constitution; that we should give authors a limited period were they can exclusively benefit from their work because I believe it does encourage them to produce more. I also try to pay for free software as often as possible because I appreciate the author's hard work and want to encourage them to continue. I'm not asking to get free stuff. All I'm demanding is to retain my rights as a human being and United States citizen.
            [ Parent ]
          • Re:DRM by imikem (Score:1) Wednesday September 20 2006, @12:18PM
        • Re:DRM by panaceaa (Score:2) Wednesday September 20 2006, @03:00AM
          • Re:DRM by mrchaotica (Score:2) Wednesday September 20 2006, @09:19AM
            • Re:DRM by Kelsen (Score:1) Wednesday September 20 2006, @11:26AM
              • Re:DRM by mrchaotica (Score:2) Wednesday September 20 2006, @11:55AM
                • Re:DRM by Kelsen (Score:1) Wednesday September 20 2006, @12:40PM
                  • Re:DRM by mrchaotica (Score:2) Wednesday September 20 2006, @01:55PM
            • Re:DRM by IpalindromeI (Score:2) Wednesday September 20 2006, @01:13PM
              • Re:DRM by mrchaotica (Score:2) Wednesday September 20 2006, @05:56PM
                • Re:DRM by IpalindromeI (Score:2) Thursday September 21 2006, @12:06AM
                  • Re:DRM by mrchaotica (Score:2) Thursday September 21 2006, @12:26AM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:DRM by walt-sjc (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @12:58PM
      • Re:DRM by OwnedByTwoCats (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @12:59PM
      • Re:DRM by DrDitto (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @01:12PM
        • Re:DRM by Pofy (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @01:37PM
          • Re:DRM by DrDitto (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @01:47PM
            • Re:DRM by kimvette (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @05:19PM
            • Re:DRM by Pofy (Score:2) Thursday September 21 2006, @02:34AM
              • Re:DRM by Pofy (Score:2) Thursday September 21 2006, @09:54AM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:DRM (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ktappe (747125) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @01:47PM (#16139610)
        You are not entitled to DRM-free content. The entitlement disease is rampant on Slashdot.
        Apparently so is the "fuck the consumer" disease. You seem to be confusing the concepts of "earned" and "entitled". When a user pays for content, they have the right to play it. That is not "entitlement", it is "receiving what one worked for and paid for." If you still disagree, then I suppose you are OK with not being able to drive your car anymore when the manufacturer suddenly decides to make it obsolete. And, actually, to continue that analogy, there are laws in the U.S. that force car (and other product) makers to maintain a supply of parts for their products so that exactly this type of thing cannot happen with material goods. Seems to me it's high time for the same to be legislated of digital media; you should not have your 6 month old purchase of a song or movie suddenly taken from you because they choose not to support it anymore. Or do you support the 'right' of big business to fuck with the consumer in absolutely any way they see fit? I'm sure you don't advocate additional consumer protection laws because you oppose government interfering in our lives, but it sure is interesting how you have no problem with corporations interfering with our lives. Why do you take diametrically opposing views on these two entities when they act (and misbehave) so much alike? And why is the concept of treating the consumer fairly such a low priority for you?

        -Kurt

        [ Parent ]
      • Re:DRM by AJWM (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @04:53PM
      • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:DRM by hpavc (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:23AM
      • Re:DRM by InsaneProcessor (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:41AM
    • D-ARRRR-M? by dlim (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @01:14PM
  • DRM by rackhamh (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:30AM
    • Re:DRM by rackhamh (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:21AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • PlaysForSure? (Score:5, Insightful)

    It seems to me that if you create a format called "PlaysForSure", it should actually "Play for Sure". OTherwise your customers might - oh, I don't know - lose confidence in your ability to compete in the market? Instead, they'll go to a certain competitor that does "Play for Sure" despite not advertising such?

    It's almost as if Microsoft is reading Slashdot. Their new business plan is:

    1. Create a format called "PlaysForSure"
    2. Make certain that it doesn't "Play for Sure"
    3. Cede 95% of the market to Apple
    4. ???
    5. PROFIT!
  • PlaysForSure? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by byolinux (535260) * on Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:31AM (#16137607)
    (Last Journal: Friday December 08 2006, @04:28PM)
    This is kinda dumb.. but I don't think this is something that Microsoft is alone in. This is just an example of the problems with Digital Restrictions Management. We'll see a lot more of this to come.
  • Hold up a sec (Score:4, Insightful)

    by spacedx (458227) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:32AM (#16137620)
    How about everyone not flip out about the specs on an unreleased product?
  • I'm kind of stunned by this (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jeffs72 (711141) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:34AM (#16137630)
    (Last Journal: Monday August 23 2004, @03:25PM)
    I guess this is Microsoft wanting to get their player popular, but to have a public company say "Sure, violate DRM" is sort of flabberghasting, especially coming from Microsoft.

    Think of the liability this opens them up to, didn't edonkey get shut down for enabling those evil hackers from trading music and movies?

    Hopefully this will point to a market trend, an admission that copyrights are out of control to a large degree. I hate buying music from Itunes because of all the stupid license rules associated with it. It'd be nice to just be allowed to buy some .mp3 files and do with them as I feel. I don't even need a lossless format, my damaged ears can't tell the difference anyway.

  • End to End Solution (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Winterblink (575267) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:34AM (#16137637)
    (http://winterblink.com/)
    It's obvious Microsoft is shooting for an iTunes-ish end-to-end solution for music, a tightly integrated store+software+player solution. It's just interesting to me that URGE and Windows Media Player aren't it to them, which shows a pretty shocking lack of confidence in their own services and products, as far as the Zune is concerned.

    RealNetworks and Sandisk have already stated their intent to do something similar, which reeks like all the PlaysForSure partners aren't too impressed with this move by Microsoft.
  • How cute! by corroncho (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:37AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • It's a trap! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:38AM (#16137656)
    It's a trap. I expect a later announcement that the Zune will, in fact, Play For Sure (tm). This move has been taken to discredit opponents of DRM, like the EFF and most of the people who comment on this site. Every opponent of DRM will use the Zune as an example of how DRM fucks the consumer in the ass, and then Microsoft will reveal that they are wrong about this speciifc case, suggesting that perhaps they are wrong about DRM in general, too.

    Just think about it.. just how dumb do you think MS are?

    • Re:It's a trap! by Opportunist (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:52AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:It's a trap! by hiryuu (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @11:47AM
    • Re:It's a trap! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by protohiro1 (590732) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @12:10PM (#16138870)
      (http://www.lunaticleft.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday September 21 2006, @02:26PM)
      I think they are totally dumb. Seriously, I don't think this is a conspiracy. This is a total fuck up caused by a slow response and now a desperate attempt to catch up with apple. MS changed their strategy from trying to license a music format to other hardware makers (the windows technique) to wanting to have an end to end solution like ipod/itunes. Now they look like assholes and this product is just no going to sell. Or, it will sell as well as MediaCenter or whatever other lifestyle product that they are demoing this month. So far microsoft can't seem to move consumer electronics. (excepting the xbox, which may have sold well, but it could hardly be called a profit center) With Apple microsoft is in the unenviable position of chasing after someone else with a de facto monopoly in the space. Apple floundered in the 90s trying to convince people their product was just as good or better as Microsoft/dell's, but its hard to chase someone that has that kind of market dominence. Microsoft is now facing people who are vendor-locked into ipod, high market penetration and the kind of brand awarence marketing people kill for. No matter how great the Zune is they have to fight being known as the "microsoft ipod" which isn't where you want your product to be.

      My question about this is why, exactly, is microsoft even wasting their time on this? Who cares if apple sells a lot of ipods? It doesn't hurt Microsoft's bottom line. Most ipod users run windows on the desktop.
      [ Parent ]
    • And here's one reason why: by StreetStealth (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @07:14PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • DRM is not infection (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Yvan256 (722131) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:38AM (#16137657)
    (http://www.yvan256.net/)
    I know most of you don't like DRM, but it's not infecting files. It's not a virus/trojan/whatever.

    It's a lock. A digital lock. Call it Digital Restrictions Management if you must (since it stills describe what it does), but not infection.

    The general public already has their hands full trying to understand all this technological mumbo-jumbo. Let's not spread more FUD.

  • Standard formats vs blackbox drm by GodWasAnAlien (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:38AM
  • PlaysForSure obsolete? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LaughingCoder (914424) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:40AM (#16137669)
    I assume the Zune will not be stamped with the PlaysforSure logo, certifying that it is able to play those tracks. This does not compromise the validity of PlaysForSure at all -- that is merely a way for consumers to know where their media will be playable (ie which portable media players they can buy). There was no guarantee, explicit or otherwise, that these songs would play forever - only that they would play on devices that were certified PlaysForSure compatible (of which, apparently, Zune is not one).

    This suggests to me that there haven't been many PlaysForSure track purchases. I suspect most people who play DRM'd WMA files subscribe to unlimited services like Yahoo Unlimited. I am such a person, and I have yet to purchase a "burnable" track.
  • Ouch (Score:5, Funny)

    by TheWoozle (984500) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:41AM (#16137674)
    Microsoft really does a remarkable job of shooting themselves in the foot, don't they? It's like a frickin' comedy of errors with Microsoft's attempts to enter into the media device market.

    The worst part is that their formats (WMA/WMV) have become the formats of choice for a large number of devices and services. And now those services are feeling what it's like to be a Microsoft customer. Ouch. Sorry guys, we should've told you to lube up first.
    • Re:Ouch by Hijacked Public (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:59AM
      • Re:Ouch by TheWoozle (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:23AM
      • Re:Ouch by vadim_t (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:41AM
      • Re:Ouch by Petrushka (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @06:16PM
    • Re:Ouch by kfg (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:13AM
  • no contradiction (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oohshiny (998054) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:42AM (#16137681)
    It's a common theme that companies and governments want you to do things that are illegal. In fact, arguably, a lot of legislation is aimed at making things illegal that many people will be doing anyway (and, in some cases, don't have a choice): traffic laws, drug laws, decency laws, copyright laws, etc. Those sorts of laws are useful tools for selective enforcement, stronger contract negotiation positions, barriers to entry, and differential pricing.

    Microsoft like DRM and the DMCA because it gives them the ability to implement differential pricing, erect bariers to entry, and have stronger negotiating positions; and they like DRM-breaking software because it makes their devices more useful. There is no contradiction in their behavior.

    Of course, there is a contradiction tp their stated justifications for DRM, and it is important to bring this up prominently whenever Congress reconsiders DRM-related legislation.
  • Buy hardware and music without DRM. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by crazyjeremy (857410) * on Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:42AM (#16137686)
    (http://users.mtrx.net/funnypics | Last Journal: Monday September 25 2006, @11:29AM)
    Why again do people still buy hardware with DRM at all? There are still plenty of products from the States and other countries which do not have these limitations.
  • by Anon-Admin (443764) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:43AM (#16137695)
    (http://www.darkspores.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday May 01 2007, @10:44AM)
    So the next person to be taken to court for violation of copyright should claim that it was Microsoft's idea, they told me it would be OK to do it.

    I knew it was only a matter of time before this type stuff started happening to DRM. With the DCMA backing up DRM and the vendor lockin to players, it will not be long before congress steps in and makes some changes. Just wait until one of there kids has an issue with it.
  • by swschrad (312009) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:47AM (#16137725)
    (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Monday April 16 2007, @01:18PM)
    Microsoft, meet the devil. RIAA, meet The Borg. lock 'em both in a room and wait for the noise to die down before looking to see if anything survived ;)
  • Anyone not see this coming? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dtfinch (661405) * on Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:47AM (#16137728)
    (Last Journal: Monday September 25 2006, @01:19PM)
    If you buy aggressively DRM'd media, they'll find yourself having to buy it again, break the law, or go without when it stops working years later.
  • Legal format conversions? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by imkonen (580619) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:48AM (#16137729)
    Why can't there be legal format conversions? Why can't MS (and other DRM happy companies) release a tool that converts "old" DRMed media to "new" DRMed media...still locked to the same computer. (I realize there are other complicated permuations of DRM like getting data off of a DVD in any manner, but in terms of online purchased, DRMed media...) Wouldn't it only be "circumventing" if it stripped the DRM? I realize media companies have no incentive to do that willingly, but if MS and other compatibility challenged hardware manufacturers are serious about marketing the Zune et al., actually solving this problem for their customers would seem like an obvious step.
  • Makes Sense (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WiseWeasel (92224) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:48AM (#16137730)
    Although it's not the smartest tactical move, it does make some sense that Zune won't play PlaysForSure content, as it guarantees some additional revenue (beyond the PlaysForSure licensing fees MS charges those other vendors) as customers are forced to use the MS music store. It will also make customer support much more straightforward; having every aspect of this music device from a single vendor will ensure a better user experience. Personally, I think the addition of PlaysForSure would have been an effective selling point, and could have helped MS get a foot in the market's door. On the other hand, those other music services haven't been too successful, so it isn't that big of a penalty.

    While the decision will surely harm MS in the short term, and completely alienate all the other PlaysForSure software and hardware licensees (probably killing the format), it would definitely improve MS's long-term prospects, assuming it isn't pulled off the market after a year of dismal sales. If history is any indication, MS will stick with it, keep improving their offerings, and eventually have something that appeals to the lowest common denominator on the market.
  • I somehow knew this was coming. by trudyscousin (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:55AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Mixed feelings by xoyoyo (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:58AM
  • Phisical Media the way to go by wingfoot (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:58AM
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:00AM (#16137804)
    (Last Journal: Wednesday October 31, @08:33AM)
    I wonder why slashdotters make comments disparaging the monicker "PlayForSure". It is named correctly and it works as designed. The problem seems to be that slashdotters think "PlayForSure" means the songs the chumps bought will play for sure. Nah. Common misunderstanding. Play for sure, simply means, MSFT will play these chumps who buy DRMed music for sure, play them like a fiddle, shake them down for music they have already bought.
  • Is It Just Me? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:03AM
  • Hate to defend M$, but... by orb_fan (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:03AM
    • Re:Hate to defend M$, but... (Score:5, Informative)

      by WebGangsta (717475) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:25AM (#16137966)
      I read over the weekend that MSFT will wrap their own DRM onto *any* file that is uploaded to a Zune player... regardless of what the individual file's copyright says about how it can be distributed.

      This is related to the Zune's ability to share files with other Zune players.

      More info here, all throughout the comments: http://www.zuneinsider.com/2006/09/answers_to_some .html [zuneinsider.com]

      "There currently isn't a way to sniff out what you are sending, so we wrap it all up in DRM. We can't tell if you are sending a song from a known band or your own home recording so we default to the safety of encoding."

      [ Parent ]
  • Free download of same title, different format? by dpbsmith (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:07AM
  • zune commercial song by thedrunkensailor (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:08AM
  • Of all the days... [wikipedia.org]

    Microsoft, you scurvy dogs!
  • J Allard Interview - Link (Score:4, Informative)

    by giafly (926567) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:19AM (#16137912)
    Q. Where is Zune going to fit in with people's pre-existing media libraries? What is it going to support? What can we expect when we actually get a Zune and want to be able to use it with the media that we currently have?

    A Lots of DVD ripping software out there that encodes to those formats, so the most popular formats out there, whether it's MPEG-4 or H.264, we'll support those.

    Q When PlaysForSure was introduced, the premise was, we make it simple so that you don't have to worry about whether your player works with the music you're purchasing...

    A. We've also found that there's a category of customers that say, "Give me a brand experience, advertise it to me on television; I want to be part of the digital music revolution, and that solution [PlaysForSure] doesn't work for me." So they're two complementary solutions -- not everyones gonna want Zune and not everyone's gonna want PlaysForSure. They're different paths there, and we're okay with both of them.

    Extracts from The Engadget Interview: J Allard, Microsoft Corporate Vice President [engadget.com]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • drm = crazy by xoundmind (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:19AM
    • Re:drm = crazy by asylumx (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @12:20PM
  • arrr (Score:4, Funny)

    by Blob Pet (86206) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:21AM (#16137938)
    (http://yantran.com/)
    Aye, why do Me suddenly feel the need t' pirate some mo'ies?
    Because tis' Talk Like a Pirate Day. Gar, Where can I find a bottle o'rum?
  • The New IPod Killer (Score:5, Funny)

    by onkelonkel (560274) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:22AM (#16137941)
    ...snort....giggle...
  • "Plays for sure.... psyche!"

    "Plays for now."

    "Plays for as long as we feel like it."

    "Sure it plays. Trust us."
  • Undefensible Position by Enderandrew (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:33AM
  • Mac solution by Midnight Thunder (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:33AM
  • Much ado about nothing? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by c (8461) <christophe.beauregard@sympatico.ca> on Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:33AM (#16138045)

    I'm hardly what you'd call a Microsoft fan-boy (I'm not even a Microsoft user), but I'm not seeing where it says that it can't play this stuff. I haven't seen any confirmation from the horse's mouth. I mean, this is all coming from a footnote in a PR document which says:

    Zune software can import audio files in unprotected WMA, MP3, AAC; photos in JPEG; and videos in WMV, MPEG-4, H.264.
    It doesn't say that other applications can't put protected music onto the device, nor does it say that it can't play that stuff. It just says that the built-in software can't do it. Which makes sense, really, because it would imply that Microsoft is ready, willing and able to break the protection applied by a partnering online music store. That's pretty nasty, even for a "stab your partner" company like them.

    Of course, that won't make it much of an iTunes killer. "Oh, you want to import music from some other store. Okay.... open their player app, and see if they'll let you export each individual piece of media to the Zune. Including the stuff you ripped from CD and it helpfully 'protected' for you. Then, if you're lucky and they haven't changed the terms and conditions or you've moved computers or devices or something..."

  • Not violating DMCA by ajs318 (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:39AM
  • No hypocrisy here or anything by smchris (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:48AM
  • Engadget Interview - Zune Plays AAC by Pinky3 (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:52AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by Chabil Ha' (875116) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @11:03AM (#16138300)
    I'm no knee jerk anti-drm demon here because I'm really trying to look at this in an agnostic way. This really bites for consumers and really instills a real lack of confidence in the whole scheme of content devices. Not only does the DRM itself kind of lock you into certain vendors, but now there is no guarantee that the content will work on a device from the same vendor. Honest to goodness I was considering a Zune, mostly because I didn't want to get an iPod because it was the trendy thing to do. But after looking at the options, I know without a doubt that the Zune is not for me. This, because of the latest news on how its tentacles get wrapped around your non-DRM files, AND there's really no way for me to be sure that MS will change its mind AGAIN about the future compatibility of its own file formats. What am I to do? I want to get an iPod, but I'm not not sure they are the answer either because now I can't be sure that if I buy music through iTunes that it won't break someday either. It seems to me that if I still want to buy legitimate music from iTunes, I need to get a pirated counterpart in a non-restricted format like MP3 or ogg, etc. so that as devices wax and wane, I'm still able to listen to my tunes...which really kinda defeats the purpose of going legit.

    Even for someone who's tech savvy, the uncertainty is disconcerting...
  • "Plays for Sure" by Prometheus+Bob (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @11:10AM
  • How appropriate by plopez (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @11:12AM
  • I want a branded what now? by kkiller (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @11:31AM
  • Plays for Sure? by SuperMog2002 (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @11:44AM
  • call me surprised by wardk (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @12:02PM
  • Bad Journalisim by Bill, Shooter of Bul (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @12:37PM
  • Look at this; by jskline (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @12:58PM
  • Message: Never trust Microsoft. by guidryp (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @01:20PM
  • zune by Heppelld0 (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @01:25PM
  • Mockery of themselves by TheNinjaroach (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @01:48PM
  • Well, at least you learned it before buying it by AttilaSz (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @01:57PM
  • glaring misconception in the article... by digmediaguy (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @03:22PM
  • PlaysForSure by darkshadow (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @04:26PM
  • Re:dear slashdot editors by SengirV (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:39AM
  • Re:dear slashdot editors (Score:3, Insightful)

    by timster (32400) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @09:44AM (#16137705)
    Cry bias all you want, but Zune's lack of ability to play PlaysForSure content is completely preposterous. This is the absolute, objective truth.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Shut up losers (Score:3, Insightful)

    by XzQuala (950050) on Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:18AM (#16137910)
    Where the hell is my damn -1 WRONG modifier? ANY attempt to circumvent the WEAKEST of encryption (css ispretty freaking weak) without the consent of the copyright holder is a criminal offense in the USA. And just to make matters totally STUPID, its a felony to boot. Thank you DMCA.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:DRM is a joke. by kfg (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:21AM
  • Re:DRM is a joke. by XzQuala (Score:1) Tuesday September 19 2006, @10:35AM
  • "infected" is perfect by r00t (Score:2) Tuesday September 19 2006, @11:12AM
  • 12 replies beneath your current threshold.