Slashdot Log In
MSN Music Purchases Not Compatible with Zune
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Nov 06, 2006 08:35 PM
from the digital-restrictions-management dept.
from the digital-restrictions-management dept.
lewiz writes "The BBC is reporting that music purchased at MSN Music will not play on the new Zune music player." From the article: "The problem has arisen because tracks from the MSN Music site are compatible with the specifications of the Plays For Sure initiative. This was intended to re-assure consumers as it guaranteed that music bought from services backing it would work with players that supported it. MSN Music, Napster, AOL Music Now and Urge all backed Plays For Sure as did many players from hardware makers such as Archos, Creative, Dell and Iriver. In a statement a Microsoft spokesperson said: 'Since Zune is a separate offering that is not part of the Plays For Sure ecosystem, Zune content is not supported on Plays For Sure devices.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I think Microsoft should have called it ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sure Microsoft will compensate both customers (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, is there a single person in the world who doesn't shrivel with revulsion when they see the letters "MSN"?
Either that or the years and years of ignoring/closing windows with "MSN" at the top will have created a subconscious filter to block it out.
Not a good customer retention idea... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No Way! (Score:5, Insightful)
Zune is, practically speaking, a DRM 2.0 for MS and entertainment mega-corps.
Which goes to show you how much MS actually values companies using their platform in 2006.
Parent
Re:No Way! (Score:5, Insightful)
...
From 14 November, customers on the MSN Music store site will now be redirected to Zune Marketplace or, as part of a 2005 legal settlement where Microsoft agreed that no music service would receive greater promotion than RealNetworks, Real Rhapsody.
MS just fscked everyone who got onboard with their PlayForSure program. This move only makes sense if MS decided that the ill will generated by screwing all their existing customers is outweighed by the the marketshare they'll gain from Zune
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple failed to open the Mac and has managed to keep 100% of 5% of the market, down from ~50% at peak. Contrast with the very open Intel x86 standard. (not just the chip, the whole architecture has competition)
Sony has introduced countless (now) irrelevent proprietary media types all of which either failed to ever get traction or started with a bang, but dropped off until they disappeared. Contrast with the very open CD media standard, and even the very licensabl
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My MP3 player is actually my Motorola RAZR V3i Mobile phone. I got it on contract for £0, to which I added a pair headphones (£12) plus a 1g Micro SD card (£28), for a total of £40. Its a certainly capable phone, with class 1 bluetooth which pairs well with my car bluetooth handsfree, and email capabilities. Its small enough, and has Drag and Drop MP3 playback - It has a standard Mini USB port, and can be set to appear as a USB mass storage device with no need for drivers, un
Re:Not a good customer retention idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they go on with this -
They could save a few of those dollars by applying some basic business sense.
Parent
Typical MS arrogance... (Score:3, Interesting)
Here they obviously have decided that the Zune will be the killer player and they don't need their former partners because "they're microsoft". They screw over existing customers and partners, to bring forth a product that may or may not be adequate (the iPod is sure as hell adequate by the market behavior), all the while not even bothering to undercut the
Just wait for the lawyers to come in... (Score:2)
-JMP
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, DRM is inherently evil (Score:5, Interesting)
Over the past week, I've heard a number of people claim that there's nothing inherently evil about DRM: that it's just a neutral tool, and you can do good or evil things with it. I'm always a little surprised to hear this. After all, the media cartel calls it "Digital Rights Management;" that kind of Orwellian doublespeak makes it hard to think positive thoughts about it.
The point of DRM is to keep someone from making full use of some data they have, and I can't imagine what's good about that. It's certainly bad when it keeps me from putting my music on all my devices. It's bad when it keeps me from recording the TV shows I watch, too. And even when it has potential security applications, I think it's bad. Sure, a company could use DRM-like technology to keep its internal correspondence away from competitors and journalists. But do we want to live in a society where the New York Times can't get a copy of the Pentagon Papers?
If DRM isn't inherently evil, it certainly doesn't have anything going for it.
Re:Yes, DRM is inherently evil (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But I digress.
Re:Yes, DRM is inherently evil (Score:5, Informative)
DRM is Alice sending a message to Bob while preventing Bob from seeing it.
DRM is a (moronic) form of encryption, not the other way around.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
First off, that's simply false. Libraries have been 'file sharing' networks for books for all of history, and yet we have a thriving book publishing industry.
Secondly, assuming you are right, why should I care if the RIAA folds and goes home? They no longer perform any useful service. We're not
Re:Yes, DRM is inherently evil (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yes, DRM is inherently evil (Score:4, Interesting)
It might be possible that it wasn't the original intent of content providers to use DRM to force users to buy multiple copies of the same material in order to use it on multiple devices, but I am sure that they now consider it to be a dandy feature; a feature that they don't want to lose.
Parent
Not sure I believe that. (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it impossible to not believe that one of the key selling points of DRM, is that it forces a consumer to re-purchase the same content over and over and over.
You want to listen to a track on your portable player? Sure, $1.
Want to listen to it on your cell phone? $2.50.
Want to burn it to a CD, maybe another $0.50.
Want to stream it over the internet, so you can hear it from your office/friend's computer/wherever? You're S.O.L.
You say it's to prevent "illegal distribution" but I'd argue that it could just as easily be to prevent format and space-shifting, since the 'loss' due to format shifting (if you consider the income that they wouldn't receive as a result of space and format-shifting a 'loss') is probably equal if not greater than the losses due to interpersonal sharing. With 'ideal' DRM, you could charge consumers per-track, per-listen, and then charge for every format and every possible way to enjoy the content. The revenue possibilities are unimaginable. Only the shortsighted see it as just a method to prevent seventh-graders from swapping discs.
At the end of the day it's academic whether the intent is to prevent "piracy" and it also prevents format-shifting, or whether it's intended to do both from the vary beginning. In most implementations, it does do both.
In my mind, regardless of what effect it might have on piracy, if it curtails established consumer rights or Fair Use, then it ought to be unacceptable. My ability to listen to the same piece of legitimately purchased music in various locations and in various formats is not an 'acceptable loss' in some epic battle between the valiant protectors of Intellectual Property and the American Way and the Evil Pirates.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not true in the USA. If you attempt to get around it and you live in the USA you are likely breaking the law.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Co pyright_Act [wikipedia.org]
"DRM does not suddenly unlock with the material is public domain or the copyright is expired or the use is a "fair use"."
Very good point - in theory. But when the copyright expires, people will likely be using an entirely different technology. For example, music that is coming out of co
Re:Yes, DRM is inherently evil (Score:4, Interesting)
No, but the privilege of keeping documents secret is abused far too often. I would argue it's abused more often than it's used correctly. Of course, because I don't get to see what's classified, I can't know this for sure.
Hold on there. The property belongs to the public; we're just renting it to the creators for a limited amount of time to reward them for benefitting the public good.
The Constitution of the United States would seem to disagree with you. It may not be a human right, but it's a granted right nonetheless.
It's not that simple. The movie in the movie theater, the music on the CD, and the software in my computer? I own it, along with my neighbors. By intentionally making it hard to use, the media companies are stealing my property from me. It's no different than if I borrowed your car and forgot to return it for your entire lifetime.
The rich media companies would like you to believe that they are hounded by criminals every day, but that's simply not the case. They are the guilty party.
And no, I'm not a troll.
Parent
Another reason (Score:2)
Different player? Doesn't support my current format. Well, if everything breaks, I can always re-rip them and do not need to re-buy them.
Re:Another reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Call me crazy but I don't want to feel like an untrusted criminal for BUYING music. Treat me like a criminal, then I might as well act like one.
Parent
Private copying is the way! (Score:2)
Suddenly... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oblig Nelson quote: (Score:2)
"Ha ha - you've been usurped! That's right, I said usurped."
Rename "Plays For Sure" (Score:2)
talk about missing the point (Score:2)
the obvious joke... (Score:5, Funny)
Played for Sure... (Score:2)
Article writer lacking in reading comprehension (Score:5, Informative)
I fail to see anything the article says being backed up by anything Microsoft said.
It says the Zune marketplace content is not Plays For Sure content. It does NOT say that the Zune is not Plays For Sure compatible.
Re:Article writer lacking in reading comprehension (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, the article's submitter lacks reading comprehension, but other articles have made it pretty clear that Microsoft's Zune player will not play PlaysForSure content. Your comment isn't explicitly claiming that Zune players will play PlaysForSure content, but some readers might think it's possible. It's almost certainly not. Zune has been hyped by MS for some time now and will launch in just 8 days. Don't you think PlaysForSure (content) playback would be a great big feature that MS would hype for its Zune player? I'm hoping MS comes to it's senses and adds PlaysForSure compatibility to Zune players at a later date.
Anyhoo, here's part of an Engadget interview with J Allard [engadget.com], MS Corporate Vice President, that discusses the Zune player's compatibility with PlaysForSure content. To me, Allard's answers seem like evasive bullshit mixed with promotional bullshit, but it's pretty clear the Zune player will not (initially) play PlaysForSure content:
===================
So up until this point Microsoft's digital music strategy has been largely to create an ecosystem and be a supplier of a DRM platform to manufacturers and online music stores. PlaysForSure was the thrust of Microsoft's strategy until the announcement of the Zune. How does PlaysForSure fit into Microsoft's strategy going forward? It doesn't appear that the Zune will be compatible with any PlaysForSure retailers. How does that affect Microsoft's current partners who rely on PlaysForSure?
I think there's two answers to the question. First answer is, this whole digital music revolution is really just starting. There's still a lot to be figured. We certainly don't think we have it all figured out, and we think there will be change. The second thing is that specifically when it comes to PlaysForSure, think about you might buy a Windows PC versus how my mother might buy a Windows PC. My mom calls up Dell and says, "I have seven hundred bucks, get me a computer. What's the best thing I can get?" She doesn't specify the keyboard, the monitor, the memory configuration. The conversation might get as specific as, "Do you think you want to burn DVDs?" Then she gets a product that shows up and it's all pre-installed.
There are other people that go to Fry's Electronics and hand pick the graphics card, the case for their computer, they build a Windows-based PC from the ground up. We have a solution for both of those things. We at Microsoft have a platform that is Windows, we have a solution for the crowd of consumers that are very deliberate about how they build their PC solution, and we also have a solution for people who just want turnkey. And I think that's how these two strategies complement each other. The PlaysForSure is still a program we're going to invest in, we still have a lot of partners there, and for a class of consumers who that want to have a hand-crafted media media experience and maximize their choice, we have an answer. There's another class of consumers that just want to get digital media, and they just want to be able to go to one store and have it all just plain, dead simple, and don't want to know what a codec is.
Wasn't that the point of PlaysForSure?
Well, it's like asking a question about Windows -- and the point of Windows was to bring personal computing to the world -- some people are going to pick their PCs, they're going to pick their monitor, they're going to pick their printer, they're going to pick their graphics card, and combine the things that they've chosen. Other people just a want a system that's end-to-end -- all compatible out of the gate -- and that's what Zune
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as the Zune can play plain non-DRM encumbered MP3s, then there's really no reason for Zune owners who have purchased PFS music to not simply fire up their preferred P2P client and download MP3 versions of what they already purchased.
dumb meets dumber (Score:5, Funny)
Just when you thought microsoft could not pull anything stupider than they had lately... I mean really, what is this? Yes we have here a standard and we are backing it and we are making it the universally compatible technology, but wait, except for this major new product we're releasing. Doesn't this just incredibly piss off everyone - the customers, the manufacturers, the retailers? What on earth could they possibly be getting in exchange for all this horrid customer ill-will?
Bad Bill! No cookie!
Enough's Enough! (Score:4, Funny)
Plays For Sure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
-
Anyone need a batshit insane realtor? [vancouvercondo.info]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I can only say... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying you're wrong here, but it's not the world's most difficult problem to solve.
Parent
Re:I can only say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
They want to be apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:They want to be apple (Score:5, Interesting)
That must be what they want, then. Because people are still mostly buying iPods. They are not just out-selling all the other players. They are outselling all the other players combined.
Why? I couldn't speak for others, but I know why I bought one.
1. The user interface is simply better. It's not even a vaguely subjective thing. It's better. I've yet to meet anybody face-to-face who honestly believes otherwise.
2. iTunes is a darn good media player on my computer, and the iPod works with it seamlessly.
3. They finally fixed that damned gapless playback issue.
4. Though I prefer buying CD's and ripping them as lossless files, iTMS is kind of spiffy for one-hit-wonder pop tracks.
5. It's easy to get peripherals for it. I have a car charger which doubles as a cradle and triples as a very good FM transmitter. My iPod + the Ford stock stereo makes the perfect "pull-out" audio system for my dashboard. I just take the whole iPod with me when I park, leaving my El-Cheapo radio and a strange-looking plastic stand in the car. It was the best of several just like it from different manufacturers. With no other portable music player do I have half as many options for gizmos like that.
6. My 80GB iPod plus my RAZR together take up less space than my first cell phone did by itself.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the end I keep getting annoyed. This has lead me to this conclusion:
The very point of a portable music player is that it is a luxury. It has no business existing unless it works absurdly well.
If I had to listed to podcasts for my work or something like that, maybe I'd go for cheap capacity. But the whole idea of a music player is to make the dull or annoying bits of your day a bit nicer. It doesn't really make rational sens
Re:Embrace and extend comming soon (Score:5, Funny)
It must have taken you twice as long to be totally wrong as it would have for you to have RTFA. If you had RTFA and got to the third paragraph before you tiny brain overflowed, you have read this: "But in a move that could alienate some customers, MSN-bought tracks will not be compatible with the new gadget."
Here's a reason to RTFA: You might look alightly less like a complete and utter fucking moron.
Parent
How would it break it? (Score:3, Informative)
This is really a bizarre move that makes it seem like Microsoft just wants an iron fist, to make sure the Zune only works with their music store and doesn't work with anything else at all, forcing customers to their music store.
This is why t