Zune Won't Play Old DRM Infected Files

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.

Re:DRM

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.

Re:DRM

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.

Re:DRM

I'd mod that insightful, if it weren't so painfully obviously true.

Re:DRM

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.

do you live under a rock?

the DMCA does not have a fair use exemption. If it did, I don't think anyone would care about the DMCA, and people like the guy who was arrested for making an Acrobat reader for blind people, etc. would not have been bothered.

If it is indeed allowed to do this, then where is the LEGAL software to do things that are "fair use" with DRM'd data? It doesn't exist.

Re:do you live under a rock?

If it is indeed allowed to do this, then where is the LEGAL software to do things that are "fair use" with DRM'd data? It doesn't exist.

RTFL. It does indeed make an exception for circumvention for the purposes of fair use. However, this only applies to the actual person doing doing the circumvention. The distribution of tools to circumvent copyright protection technology is still illegal. So, going back to the circumvention of Adobe's DRM in Acrobat for use by the blind, none of the blind people using it (assuming they had legally obtained the copyrighted works in question) were breaking the law...only the person who gave them the software.

By this same reasoning, there is nothing illegal about circumventing CSS to rip a DVD you own to your iPod. However, you are expected to write your own tool to do so; nobody else is allowed to distribute it to you.

Yes, it's silly. But assuming you manage to get a program such as decss in your possession (which somebody will have to break the law to make happen), you can rip DVD's you own all day long without breaking the law.

As a disclaimer, IANAL. But, unlike a majority of the people I hear talking about the DMCA, I have actually at least read the law.

Re:DRM

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.

Re:DRM

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!"

Re:DRM

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.

Re:DRM

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

PlaysForSure?

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!

Re:PlaysForSure?

Oh, I don't know about that.

AllOfMP3 plays for sure (as long as the site is up).
supernova &&|| all it's vairents tend to play for sure as long as the torrent isn't comprimised.

While the legality of the former is questionable and the latter is, well, known for sure, these are still legitimite competitors to the DRM media.

-nB

To clarify legitimate competitor != legal competitor. The media companies need to understnad that if they break their own rules then they are opening the gates to others ignoring the rules a bit wider every time.
-nB

Re:PlaysForSure?

eMusic - which is completely legitimate - plays for sure too on an iPod or any other MP3 player. This is because they sell unencrypted MP3 files.
Magnatune - which is completely legitimate - plays for sure on any MP3 player too. This is because they sell unencrypted files in most formats (you choose the format when you download).

eMusic is the second largest legitimate download service, only second to iTMS. Some record labels are quite happy with DRM-less downloads.

Re:PlaysForSure?

I don't know what the eMusic in the states is like, but I have a major issue with the one in the UK in that I have to hand over my credit card details before I even have half a clue what they're selling. All they offer without an account/login is the ability to... er... create an account and log in. Woudl you hand over your credit card on walking into a shop "just in case" you wanted to buy something? Keeping it secret suggests that either their catalogue is crap, they're secretive lock-in merchants (hello AOL) or (dare I say it) a scam site.

Until then, I'll fulfill my music downloading tastes with unencrypted MP3, AAC and FLAC from Bleep, Tunetribe and 4AD.

Please note: I'm not knocking eMusic or legal downloads in general (indeed, I spend about £20 a month buying tunes online compared to £0 on music two years ago). I just don't trust the way their UK store seems to be working. And yes, I did want a chance to try it out.

Re:emusic is adware

I think the point was that they are a legitimate distributor that "plays for sure", since they distribute mp3s without DRM. But I must question your "spy/adware" comment...

First of all, there is a difference, between spyware [wikipedia.org] and adware [wikipedia.org].

Secondly, I've been using their service for almost a year and have never had adware pushed on me. Frankly, the first site's description [f-secure.com] of the adware looked like shortcuts to sign up for their services. "Desktop and start menu links"? Come on...

I'm not even sure how accurate this information is. It was last updated almost a year ago. I do have an option to uninstall the eMusic download manager. And if you're concerned about your personal information being shared you can opt out [emusic.com]. Most people do not seem to have a problem with is, as eMusic is the second largest legitimate download service [networkitweek.co.uk].

Also, how do they "push" these files to you? Based on the links you provided it sounds more like Winamp [winamp.com] and other free software are bundling these shortcuts to help support their business.

I will say that I hate spyware, adware, and malware as much as the next guy, but it sounds like you're mostly spreading FUD here. I like eMusic and haven't had any problems with adware from them. Do you work for Apple?

Re:PlaysForSure?

Maybe they should rename it to PlaysfoShizzle...

Re:PlaysForSure?

lose confidence in your ability to compete in the market? Instead, they'll go to a certain competitor that does "Play for Sure"...to Apple

Wha?!?

A blatant demonstration of exactly why DRM is an extaordinarily bad deal for the user, and the answer you reach is, "People will switch to the other mass market DRM"?

Wow. The worst part is, assuming any of the unwashed masses even notice, you're probably right.

Re:You know what they say about assumptions

So, read the full original interview, and look at the part where the interviewer ask Allard why the Zune don't support PlayForSure. Admire the answer.

Here's the link. [engadget.com]

Here's the relevant section:

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: That continues to be the premise for devices that are branded in that category, and we think that we've clearly done a lot in that program, where there's a lot of devices out there, there are a lot of services out there, there are a lot of partners, and there are a lot of satisfied customers. We like that program. 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.

Re:You know what they say about assumptions

It's _marketing_. If they had the ability to make contact with reality, they'd be in engineering.

Re:You know what they say about assumptions

That continues to be the premise for devices that are branded in that category, and we think that we've clearly done a lot in that program, where there's a lot of devices out there, there are a lot of services out there, there are a lot of partners, and there are a lot of satisfied customers. We like that program. 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."

I've accidentally tripped on an encrypted message in this statement. I'm posting it here for your own conclusions:

"We were like: we wanna copy iPod, the branding and all, but everyone wants to sue us for abusing monopoly and other such crap. So we're like: we'll make the platform and open it for anyone to license.

So we, like, waited and waited and waited and the competition never managed to outdo iPod since they are too many and they compete among each other instead of complement each other, and iPod is one: it's easy to market, and recognize.

So finally we said: well, screw antitrust cases, screw PlaysForSure: we're ripping iPod."

I thought it was PaidForSure

All this time I reading it as PaidForSure.

My bad.

Re:PlaysForSure?

"That's a hell of an operating system. What do you call it?"
"The Aristocrats!"

PlaysForSure?

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

How about everyone not flip out about the specs on an unreleased product?

Re:Hold up a sec

How about everyone not flip out about the specs on an unreleased product?

Yeah - they should give their hard earned money to the manufacturer before complaining that it's not something they want or would buy.

Re:Hold up a sec

Yeah - they should give their hard earned money to the manufacturer before complaining that it's not something they want or would buy.

Well, it's not even out yet, so unless somebody has pre-ordered a Zune, they haven't given Microsoft any of their hard-earned money yet.

I'm kind of stunned by this

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.

Stop buying DRM'ed music if you dislike it.

I hate buying music from Itunes because of all the stupid license rules associated with it.

Then don't do it. Even if you dislike doing it, each time you purchase tainted music files you're giving a show of support for DRM. Not only that, but it's financial support you're offering, which is perhaps the worst kind, as it directly allows for their deviant behavior to continue.

We know that DRM-encumbered media has many disadvantages. This Zune nonsense is a perfect example of that. So the best thing to do is to stop buying music from iTunes. Don't start buying music from whatever service Microsoft might offer. Don't buy CDs. Don't download MP3s.

What you should do is get involved with your local music scene. Get to know the bands and artists in your area, or the nearest city. Many times they're far more deserving of your financial support than the multimillionaire fucks in California, and their music is often so much better! Not only that, but you can interact with them personally, and possibly even collaborate with them to some extent (if you're a musician yourself). The best part of it all is that you're getting to listen to some decent music, and you're not supporting corrupt companies and DRM, but rather you're supporting your neighbors.

End to End Solution

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.

It's a trap!

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!

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.

DRM is not infection

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.

Re:DRM is not infection

Actually, this Zune POS makes it exactly that. It silently infects every file on the device with DRM.

Re:DRM is not infection

D'oh... that's what I get for not double-checking the URL until AFTER I hid submit. The article you'd want is actually:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/15/16 27248 [slashdot.org]