Microsoft Patents Process To "Unpirate" Music 241
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."'"
A giant leap (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it will be horribly implemented, and I want nothing to do with it.
But it's a nice idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody who releases stuff under creative commons licences is going to sue. Even if they do how much can they actually sue for? Much less then micorsoft will make off this venture anyway so they still come out in the black.
Welcome to capitalism. It doesn't matter if you break a few laws providing that the worst you get is a fine less than your profits.
Only device-to-device? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Limited Impact. Predictable. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Limited Impact. Predictable. (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Never Willingly. (Score:4, Insightful)
If a levy is imposed on flash players (and it is, here), *and* the flash player FURTHER imposes payment... that would be paying twice for material.
Another example. If someone downloads from "iTunes" here, and burns onto CD, they effectively pay for the music TWICE (or possibly THREE times):
1 - the levy paid on flash (possibly Apple players are exempt?)
2 - payment to iTunes
3 - levy paid on CD
Re:Never Willingly. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like magazines in the doctors office.
They pay for a subscription, I pay to read it. Next patient/customer pays to read the same copy.
Books shared amongst neighbors or friends also do not continue to pay the revenue stream for the publishers.
I wonder if the publishing crowd would raise their minions of lawyers if PDFs of books were shared among readers just as easily as MP3s.
This DRM is never going to work. It's like the war on drugs and the problem isn't the so called `piracy`, it's the convenience of the format.
If there were an open source DRM format that registers the owner's data within the file, then maybe, but all the players want a cut and they want it to be their format and no one is going to use something that leaves breadcrumbs.
The RIAA realizes that the reaper is sharpening his blade for them. They are not the distribution powerhouse anymore and they have wronged too many artists that do fine without them (e.g., Prince).
The RIAA is of the mindset that if a performer is playing his guitar at a crowded corner in a busy street, everyone who hears his music should drop a coin in his hat.
If I'm entertained, I'd 'buy that for a dollar.' If I'm not, I'd pass on and forget the background noise.
Re:Never Willingly. (Score:5, Insightful)
"It would be an insult to all those record stores who have supported Prince throughout his career. It would be yet another example of the damaging covermount culture which is destroying any perception of value around recorded music. The Artist Formerly Known as Prince should know that with behaviour like this he will soon be the Artist Formerly Available in Record Stores. And I say that to all the other artists who may be tempted to dally with the Mail on Sunday."
They're not even subtle about this anymore. They're openly shaking down their own artists.
Re:Never Willingly. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say that the iTunes Music Store is very close to being big enough to support an artist. Remember that Apple could easily afford to pay 70 cents to an artist for every song sold, or seven dollars for every album sold. So if iTMS sales = 10 percent of total sales, it's getting worthwhile for the artist. And since the Apple Inc. vs. Apple Corps court case is settled, there are no legal obstacles for Apple to get into the music business in a big way.
Re:Never Willingly. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Never Willingly. (Score:5, Insightful)
This idea by itself isn't a bad idea. However, when you combine it with the Music Industry wanting Internet Radio to play per listener, it suddenly points towards a very possible and unfriendly future. Pay per Play, on your personal collection. Sure the CDs you already own can't do this, but it's a very small step between: free for the first 3 plays then pay (BG's idea) and pay a small fee every 3 plays in perpetuity. I'm not trying to be all doom and gloom, but with CD sales seriously down, the music giants are getting desperate.
Non Free Music Sucks. (Score:2)
He has the music there, if we have similar playing devices, when not let me cherry pick a few songs off his immediately, then 3 days later when I'm syncing ask if I want to buy them? I get the music legally, after a few days free use, the IP holder gets their due ...
Once you pay the Danegeld you never get rid of the Dane. M$'s rent a music schemes are not a one time payment, and they will try to push everyone into it. Do you think they will pay the RIAA or artists what's fair? Yeah, right.
An alternat
Fundamentally insane to me. (Score:2)
That's a path I'd rather not go down... devices fingerprinting (through checksums or audio watermarks or whatever) the data on them like little spies and doing whatever.
No way in hell. I like my MP3 players to be glorified UMDs (that just so happen to have a headphone ja
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are gonna err on the side of making as much money off controlling other people's content as possible - regardless of the legality of any aspect of it (The CRB giving them the right, Creative Commons stuff that they shouldnt - but still will - be collecting fees for, etc).
I will not bite! (Score:2)
You know what...? I will not bite. I hope [our own] "DVD Jon" will come up with a way to defeat this nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
-DVD Jon
The Microsoft Tax (Score:5, Insightful)
"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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if only the screwed-up "justice" system would allow us to hold Microsoft liable for the violation of CC licenses...
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Ob Bash Quote (Score:5, Funny)
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"
How will they tell the difference? (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
My computer is my mom. (Score:2)
Bill Gates new nickname:
The Man with the Palladium Gun.
What about live free legal music. (Score:4, Insightful)
Soon we will be paying to hear our own recording (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Soon we will be paying to hear our own recordin (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Soon we will be paying to hear our own recordin (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Soon we will be paying to hear our own recordin (Score:2)
Why are the users paying microsoft for access? (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Proof they invent nothing new.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft sure knows what consumers want! (Score:2)
That's why Vista and The Zune are such great hits. The customer was begging for them.
Damn Media player (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WMP vs. MPC? (Score:2)
oh wait patent MP3 MLMs (Score:2)
So many things wrong with this. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
See the diagram in the --MS-- patent? (Score:2)
Why not a Zune?
Re: (Score:2)
Should this patent application be approved? (Score:5, Informative)
The p2p discussion is online right here [peertopatent.org]
So anyone can respond to this...there is still time!
Looks like more good news to me! (Score:2)
the eternal shuffle (Score:2)
I cracked it already... (Score:2, Interesting)
Pays Microsoft a fee.. (Score:2)
in reality... (Score:2)
2) ??????
3) Profit!!!!
once they figure out step 1, they are set!
GPLv3? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(did you even read the article title?)
M$-Ballmer Language (Score:2, Insightful)
did you even read the article title?
There's hardly anything new about protection money. The dialog to unPirate goes like this:
It will be a miracle if the RIAA sees a penny of it, and the artist slice will be even smaller, of course, so this hardly unpirates anything.
To use Ballmer language, they got a patent on "squirting" into "the social". It's just as dishonest
Re:Zune (Score:4, Insightful)
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."'"
The key point is that you have a chance to convert "pirated" media to "unpirated" by paying for it. The difference seems to be that the MP3 in question could have been illegally obtained from a file sharing network rather than as the product of another Zune user's legal squirt onto you.
Re:Zune (Score:5, Funny)
no comment necessary
Question is, why is this patentable? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing "new" is that, having failed to garner any interest in squirting, Microsoft is now planning to pay squirters a commission on sales. All the talk about "converting piracy" is bullshit. It's a program to tie a bone around the Zune music store so somebody will want to play with it.
How is this different than exist
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Zune (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, even unencumbered music that you "squirt" gets DRM applied to it (note: possibly in violation of the music's license, if it is released e.g. under certain Creative Commons licenses), so the Zune implements at least half the idea.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Did you read the article?...
Re:Sounds good.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Sounds good.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Sounds good.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My the idiot disagrees.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And I agreed with your point -
- but when pointing out what an idiot someone is, it really hurts your case to not be able to spell "you're."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I already paid for (almost) all of my music. And no way in hell will I pay again just to have it in my computer or my car or at work or on my phone or my portable player or anywhere. I bought the CD, I ripped the CD, and I will unapologetically play that rip in any way I so desire.
Now, the strawman you've made, while it may not apply yet, will come to matter more and more, as we see artists releasing content av
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I can see only one explanation here: You're a MAFIAA spy! Come on, admit it.
Re: (Score:2)
Also: the fees would go to MICROSOFT, with a pittance going to the artists... of that, it's very highly likely that even a large portion of THAT pittance would end up going to the MAFIAA.
So in conclusion: artists are losing more legitimate sales by people fed up with this nonsense, while the people too stupid to avoid paying this horrible, hor
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In my case, it arises from wanting to have my media (music, movies, TV shows, whatever) work on open source software, and without stupid restrictions. Note how people who actually buy DVDs are FORCED (yes, FORCED -- they tend to disable the fastforward/skip features) to watch anti-piracy bullshit, while the actual pirates that it's targeted at can either skip over or slice out the parts they don't like?
The other problem is one o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember: unregistered distribution is an act of treason. Trust the computer. The computer is your friend.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point. They ARE supporting P2P networks. Once they've ruined all the others with this viral DRM stuff, they'll launch their own P2P network that works slightly better/faster/nicer, and proclaim themselves as saving the day!
As Douglas Adams said, "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armor to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he, who by peddling secon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The WTO is a self made wanna-be authority that is unconstitutional,
US Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 2
(Though I agree with you that the WTO sucks).
Apologies (as necessary) to Jeff Foxworthy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but the Constitution has no bearing on whether something is illegal or not, unless the current SCOTUS decides it does. There's lots of
Re: (Score:2)
You just can't beat the sense of process control out of some of these senior judges...
Re: (Score:2)
Treaties (Score:2)
The WTO is a self made wanna-be authority that is unconstitutional, therefore holds no authority over U.S. citizens. If an authority is not a part of the thee branches of government, or state. Therefore it holds no power.
WTO has no power in the United States except that delegated to it by Congress through the ratification of treaties with other WTO members.
How would such a device determine what song is 'copyrighted' and which one isn't?
All sound recordings are copyrighted. Sound recordings published before 1972 are subject to state law copyright until 2067, and sound recordings published afterward are subject to federal copyright until 95 years after the end of the year of publication.