MSN Music DRM Servers Going Dark In September

PDQ Back writes to tell us about an email Microsoft sent to former customers of MSN Music today. The company said it would be turning off the DRM servers used to authorize playback of music purchased from the now-defunct MSN Music store. "'As of August 31, 2008, we will no longer be able to support the retrieval of license keys for the songs you purchased from MSN Music or the authorization of additional computers,' reads the e-mail. This doesn't just apply to the five different computers that PlaysForSure allows users to authorize, it also applies to operating systems on the same machine (users need to reauthorize a machine after they upgrade from Windows XP to Windows Vista, for example). Once September rolls around, users are committed to whatever five machines they may have authorized — along with whatever OS they are running."

DRM

[mosiadh (1045736)]

Proof that DRM is inherently evil, even for the MS fanbois.

Re:DRM

[catwh0re (540371)]

In the past, the argument against perpetual authorisation was along the lines of "if the music retailer goes under" then all your music will be lost. This, however, is proof that only a change in business strategy can render all your purchased music defunct. There could also be legal/authorisation issues if music labels pull out of the store. (Or in MS's case swap from strategy to another.)

Re:DRM

[DaedalusHKX (660194)]

You do realize that Microsoft might actually be trying to demonstrate that DRM is indeed a tool of evil.

And not just any kind of evil... but EEEEEVVEEEEELLL.. kind of evil.

Well, all I can say is simple. Expect that sooner or later, people are going to get a MAJOR shaft in the arse for locking themselves into servitude to any particular big shop. It is to be expected.

Re:DRM

[electrosoccertux (874415)]

In light of MS's recent comments about turning Windows 7 into a modular OS, and making it subscription based, lets look at any incentives MS might have in cutting off people from their legally purchased music.

I wonder if they're doing this on purpose to scare people away from paying once; to later introduce a subscription music service. Instead of buy once, play forever; buy forever, and play as long as you pay.

It would be very sly of them to scare people away from "buying once" into "paying continually, and if they decide to pull the product, well who cares, you're not paying anymore then after all". I'd have to say this shows incredible foresight if this is what they're aiming for; doing this to leave a sour taste in people's mouth with Buy Once software schemes; aiming for a more tame response to a subscription only Windows7. People would think "well what if they pull the activation servers on Windows Vista like they did the music? Maybe I DO want a subscription service..."

I once thought MS was stupid. Now, they may be more ingenious* than I ever imagined.

*It's probably just some Exec deciding they're not making enough money.

Re:DRM

[Xtravar (725372)]

I disagree, the retailer going under could render it defunct just as well.

"Going under" is a change in business strategy!

Re:Is there any chance?

[Technician (215283)]

I have a solution. The solution is available in packs of 100 for ten dollars.

I have a better solution that is working just fine. Boycott DRM. If it fails in the marketplace, it will go away. We have a vote. It's the dollar. Vote wisely and often.

I have no PC at home using WGA. Sometimes you get outvoted for the mainstream product, but you don't have to buy it.

Re:Is there any chance?

[caluml (551744)]

I have 2 votes then. It's call the British Pound. :)

Re:DRM

[nine-times (778537)]

Yes, this is a perfect example against those who would say, "DRM isn't a problem unless you're a pirate." I'm sure there were people who paid good money to buy audio tracks. Not rent, *buy*.

I know, I know, make whatever legalistic argument you want, but when people paid there money, they had an expectation that they were *buying* the music. Therefore, deactivating these servers is effectively stealing those people's property, much more so than "pirates" do. When I "pirate" downloads a music track, they haven't deprived the rightful owner of the use of that music. However, when Microsoft disables their servers, the rightful owners are deprived of their ability to listen to that music.

Of course I'd like to see DRM disappear. Short of that, companies should at least be required to offer the means to crack their DRM should they ever deactivate their servers.

A side question: can Microsoft really not afford to just keep these servers running? I guess they're having some problems with Vista being a flop and all, but how expensive can it be to maintain these servers? On the other hand, I don't particularly blame Microsoft for this situation. It's an inherent problem with DRM, and it was bound to happen to someone sooner or later.

Re:DRM

[LWATCDR (28044)]

Backwards I am afraid.
DRM isn't a problem if your a pirate. It is only a problem if you are customer.

Re:DRM

[ceoyoyo (59147)]

Ahrr, there ain't no DRM on my music, matey!

Re:DRM

[UnknowingFool (672806)]

Also don't MS partners suffer too? If Windows cannot authenticate the music, will it not play on their music players too. Why should they care? Cause they will have lots of angry customer who will blame them for something which is out of their control.

Re:DRM

[dgatwood (11270)]

Here's a thought: class action lawsuit naming both Microsoft and the record labels as codefendants. Demand that they make available DRM-free copies of all music that has been legally purchased or at a minimum provide free copies based on a more up-to-date DRM mechanism. It's time to force the industry to pay the true cost of DRM: maintaining support for it forever.

Once that is over, we should push for a law that requires all DRM-laden music sellers to be bonded for enough money to cover the cost of maintaining the DRM scheme indefinitely (that is, operating off of only a portion of the interest earned on the principal).

Re:Unlikely.

[dgatwood (11270)]

The reality is that copies of music are sold, not licensed. Title 17 does not provide for any licensing of a work to someone for use in the home. Search for the word "license" in Title 17 if you don't believe me. Every instance refers to licensing the right to copy it. The right to play a legally produced copy of music that was legally obtained is pretty soundly covered under "Fair Use". Therefore, a third party taking away the ability to play music that you own without providing a replacement effectively constitutes theft of property, and should be punished accordingly with jail time for the top people at the record companies and Microsoft plus civil liability. No contract can allow a company to violate the law, period. Such a clause would be considered an illegal agreement, and thus would not be upheld in court.

That said, if we naively believe the music industry's misinformation and consider it a license, Chapter 2, section 203 lays out what they have to do so revoke that license. Let's just say it would be cheaper for them to mail a copy of every song out on CD. Among other things, it requires them to provide an advance notice in writing to every single person who received the license, which must be signed by the copyright holders, must provide the effective date of termination, and can never occur under any circumstances prior to the 35th anniversary of the grant. Even such a revocation would not remove your rights to private listening of the material, however, as the copyright act explicitly disclaims any interest in covering such use of the material in Chapter 1, section 110:

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:
...
(4) performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work otherwise than in a transmission to the public, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and without payment of any fee or other compensation for the performance to any of its performers, promoters, or organizers, if--
(A) there is no direct or indirect admission charge; or
(B) ...

That said, if this is a nonexclusive copyright license, however, and even if you believe that somehow the EULA manages to trump Title 17, unless there is a termination clause, they cannot revoke that license without cause, and even if there is, a court will almost certainly hold such a clause to be unconscionable, particularly in light of the implied promise that the music "plays for sure", the fundamental inequality of the two parties, and the fact that for most of the people involved, the only way to obtain the music on a per-track basis in a way that was compatible with their devices was through one of a handful of services all operating under license from Microsoft, all with the same contract terms.

In short, the case would be about as open and shut as a copyright-related lawsuit can get, and Microsoft and the recording industry would be on the losing end of it.... While normally I would say that the only people who win such a case are the lawyers, even a win for the lawyers in this case would be a great win for the public as a whole, as it would establish precedent for the legal responsibility incumbent upon music publishers who choose to use restrictive DRM. and any such precedent in that area would be a positive change over the current state of the industry.

Re:DRM

[kimvette (919543)]

Which is why they say "Own it on CD today" or in the case of movies "own it on DVD today" ?

Re:DRM

[t0y (700664)]

We rightfully own licenses.

Re:DRM

[Anonymous Brave Guy (457657)]

I, along with many others, have been saying this same statement for years. Nobody actually "owns" their music. They own certain contractual rights to music owned by other people, also referred to as an intellectual property license.

Except, of course, that that isn't true either.

Nobody owns music, because music is not property. You can own a copy of some music, stored in some physical form. The law reserves the right to make certain uses of that copy to certain people, for example, via the copyright in the piece and in any particular performance of it. But the record industry or copyright holder no more own music I've paid for than I do, because music in intangible and not subject to ownership.

Now, if the record industry have taken someone's money in return for giving them a copy of some music, and then subsequently undermine the consumer's ability to enjoy that music in an expected way, then that is changing the rules. If the original contract, implied or otherwise, granted the rights to enjoy the music in normal fashion, then taking away this facility is breaking the contract and I don't see why whoever took the money shouldn't be liable for part of the cost representing the value lost. If the original contract contained some lawyerly weasel words about this possibility, then I think there is a decent ethical (and possibly legal too) argument that such terms would not normally be expected by someone buying their copy of the music and the one-sided contract terms should be invalidated.

This is simple contract law and ethics, and DRM and the technical means involved don't really matter other than as the means to the end. As with all technology, DRM in itself is ethically neutral; it's how it's used that is ethical or evil. In this case, for example, there would be no problem now if upon selling the DRM'd copies of the music to customers, the provider had also been compelled to lodge a DRM-free version in escrow, to be released in circumstances such as this so that customers did not lose out. It's the way that no such arrangement appears to be in place here and the law seems to do nothing to protect the consumer at this point that makes the situation unjust, not the DRM.

Re:DRM

[nine-times (778537)]

Most of these online stores, even the stores with DRM, tell you you're "buying" the album or track. You know, like before you actually pay money, you click on some sort of button that often says something like "buy this album". It doesn't say "rent" or "license".

Now there may well be something buried in the license agreement when you sign up for the store that says, "you aren't actually buying anything, you're just licensing the right listen them, and we can revoke that right whenever we want." Still, the way the stores are representing the transaction as "buying" the album, and that's the way consumers understand the transaction.

If there isn't any legal consequence for the owners of online "stores" for this sort of misrepresentation, there should be.

Re:even for M$.

[ls -la (937805)]

How much money are they losing on this idiocy?

Since everyone affected by this already bought their music, none. At least in the short term, they're saving money by not keeping the servers up, and as for the long term, those who bought music from MS aren't likely to switch to any other OS, so I'd say they're not likely to lose a penny.

Re:even for M$.

[fwarren (579763)]

so I'd say they're not likely to lose a penny.

Too bad more people don't have more music like this. The bigger and badder the burn. The sooner people will be in the know and avoid DRM. All music with DRM is a rental. And someday the rental office will close down. So even if you want to pay rent, there will be no one to take it.

Congress will either mandate that Apple keeps their servers going...or the Federal Government will take over the job.

Re:even for M$.

[MojoStan (776183)]

It should only take 1-2 CDs for an iTunes user to burn his or her (on average) 20 purchased, DRM'ed tracks and be able to play them on any other machine. Not all DRM is created equal.

Insightful? For chrissakes, RTFA [arstechnica.com]:

• "Of course, MSN Music customers do have one other option: burning all of their music to audio CD and then re-ripping them back to the computer as MP3s, sans DRM. But that's a lossy, lousy solution."

Re:even for M$.

[colmore (56499)]

Good info but I have to ask, are other people's slashdot comments really worth that much of your time?

Re:DRM

[Fweeky (41046)]

But, it's not as big of a deal as people make it out to be - the DRM can be circumvented by burning to and ripping from a CD.

"But, this reduces audio quality!" you say? I figure if you were that concerned about audio quality, you wouldn't be buying compressed music from MSN, iTunes, etc.

You figure wrong. Modest bitrate lossy files are made to be transparent to most people, but recompressing it is probably going to introduce noticable artifacts for many people who would otherwise be perfectly happy.

Also, what the fuck? You find it reasonable to dig out a CD(-R, erase), burn, rip, encode, and tag every album or track you buy? Especially when you're already paying most of the price of a physical copy? Excuse me if I find that a completely idiotic suggestion; I buy music online because it's convenient and fast, this oft brought up suggestion makes it neither.

Brilliant

[conteXXt (249905)]

simply brilliant.

At last Microsoft makes the case AGAINST DRM.

Thank you gentlemen.

Within terms of agreement?

[DoofusOfDeath (636671)]

Do the original terms of the sale/license agreement permit Microsoft to do this?

And if so, does this show that the product, even as initially sold, was defective, unfit for purpose, or deceptively advertised?

Re:Within terms of agreement?

[Khyber (864651)]

It won't affect those of us in California with nice consumer protection laws and prior case law against End-User License Agreements as far as I'm aware of. We'll have our compensation somehow.

Free Brown Zunes for everyone?

[tlambert (566799)]

"We'll have our compensation somehow."

Free Brown Zunes for everyone?

-- Terry

iTunes

[eldavojohn (898314)]

And if you don't buy the non-DRM iTunes songs (meaning you buy the regular iTunes music) this is exactly something you have to look forward to in the future. Some legal action by the RIAA or what have you causes Apple to revoke DRM licenses and/or stop supporting iTunes client applications.

Never forget that DRM means you are dependent on a company ... as long as you want to be able to access that music, the company has to let you.

Which is why I buy from Amazon (or if the band's site supports/suggest another) non-DRM MP3 format.

Please do not respond with "which is why I buy all my songs for $0.00 from a site called Bittorrent posts." I do tire of those ... we all already know the majority of slashdotters have the balls/lack the brains to defy the RIAA blatantly in that manner.

Re:Internet Archive.

[iggy_mon (737886)]

The worst thing to do to greedy RIAA asshats is to share really free music. There's more high quality music at that one site than you can listen to over the next 100 years.

i wonder why this comment is modded -1?

www.archive.org not only has DRM free live and studio music, but copyright expired movies, books, etc, etc etc. it's an amazing site and parent deserves to be modded up not down for making an interesting comment.

Ob "Thank you, Microsoft!"

[vrmlguy (120854)]

I keep trying to explain to people why DRM is bad. This makes my job easier.

don't worry...

[timmarhy (659436)]

... bittorrent has them backed up for you.

Sucks to be you

[Firas Zirie (1179357)]

Well that's just fabulous. Microsoft are basically telling their customers that in a few months your music is precariously balanced on the edge of not playing. How about unlocking all the music and getting over your failure of a music store huh?

I don't get it...

[Joce640k (829181)]

Would it cost them a huge amount of money to keep the server running? I doubt it. Compared to stuff like Windows update it's a tiny drop in the ocean.

It's almost as if they *want* this to be a lesson to somebody...nah, couldn't be...

Hm...

[ChinggisK (1133009)]

This doesn't just apply to the five different computers that PlaysForSure allows users to authorize

Am I the only one that read that the first time as meaning that there are only five former customers of MSN Music?


Sorry, been a long day studying for exams.

Hey, my CD still works...

[tjstork (137384)]

I have a bunch of CD's that I bought from a record store that went belly up. They still work. Maybe this DRM world ain't all its cracked up to be after all.

Awesome!

[Sneftel (15416)]

Heck, this sounds like great news. After all, unlike many a failed new media content venture, Microsoft isn't going out of business and leaving their customers high and dry... just retiring this particular service. So they have plenty of time to come up with a migration plan for their customers, so that nobody who paid for music has to lose access to it. I mean, hell. They're a multinational corporation with an image to protect. They're not just going to tell their customers to go fuck themselves, right?

Right?

ONLY GOOD THINGS COME OUT OF IT!!!

[eiapoce (1049910)]

I am utterly pleased with MS decision to shut down the DRM servers.

Know why? There are people that don't realise how bad are DRM downloads until they get royally fucked in the ass and this is what's going to happen on sept 1 2008.

Nothing educates more than a bad experience.

I felt...

[actionbastard (1206160)]

a great disturbance on the Internet, as if millions of Plays For Sure musicplayers suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

Re:I felt...

[compro01 (777531)]

millions?

Perfect Example why DRM sucks... HOWEVER.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745)]

While this is a perfect example of why DRM sucks, its also a perfect example of how media distributors can force a user to buy their music & movies multiple times. All they need do, is terminate one of their companies, and start a new one requiring a different DRM key or scheme.

Like it or not, companies love this because by licensing you products, they can terminate the license at anytime and force you to buy it again. :)

DRM sucks.

Is MS marketing really that stupid?

[Lieutenant_Dan (583843)]

Okay, first skip the obvious answer ... it was a rhetorical question.

They don't want to support it. Fair enough, stop issuing anymore of these types of DRM keys.

Now, what would cost them to keep this operational for a few years? 2 dedicated servers? 10? 20? 2 full-time staff for 5 to 10 more years to support this and use the existing datacentre support folks for the basic 24/7 stuff. Let's round it to a nice $2.5 million for 10 years. Not a whole lot for a large company.

What heat will they get from this? This is a PR fiasco for their DRM technology in general and more importantly shows that MS is willing to leave their "followers" high and dry when it suits them. What will these pissed off users do next time? Yeah, get iTunes, pirate, avoid music altogether, and better yet, avoid MS products. Potential revenue loss from 10,000 stranded users? Probably a few million. Think about: these folks PAID for DRM music. Easy sheep to get money from. They're killing their cash cow.

Someone at the MS marketing or client services department needs to get axed.

Plays For Sure...

[DieByWire (744043)]

Just not for long.

Re:suppositories

[by Anonymous Coward]

Considering that we're talking about DRM, the parent poster is strangely on topic.

Re:suppositories

[fyngyrz (762201)]

Just wait until MS decides to turn off the server farm that enables XP installations; that'll put the music in perspective.

Can't say they should be surprised -- after all, they knowingly depend upon a product with fatal, vendor controlled DRM on it. That's playing with fire in any sensible person's book. The question is: Will MS's victims (excuse me, I should probably call them consenting masochistic partners) learn from this? Or will they continue to buy products booby trapped with fatal DRM?

I guess we already know the answer, anyway. It's that darned Gaussian come back to haunt us again.

Re:suppositories

[schnikies79 (788746)]

I can't find the link at the moment but I've read that MS has stated that they would release a patch that would permanently disable XP's activation requirements when final support ends.

If someone has the link, post away.

Re:Did Anyone Else See This Coming?

[bwy (726112)]

MSFT has a lot of power, and they can't use it properly. Sure they have incorrect philosophies, but they should at least be able to EXECUTE them... but they can't.

That is a pretty good point, actually. I guess it proves that being successful is something you have to work every minute of every day at. Just because something good happened to you yesterday and now you have a lot of $$$ in the bank doesn't make it any easier to be successful at something else tomorrow.

In Microsoft's case, they obviously did something right to get most of the PC's in the world running their OS. But they've had some pretty big flops over the last few years. Proof that pumping money into something isn't enough.

Re:Why is this news? Because it's Microsoft.

[Waffle Iron (339739)]

How is this any different than, say, Ford discontinuing its Aerostar minivan line?

Unlike DRMed music, it's not a federal offense for someone service your minivan when it breaks.

Re:Why is this news? Because it's Microsoft.

[nine-times (778537)]

How is this any different than, say, Ford discontinuing its Aerostar minivan line?

Did Ford engineer the Aerostar specifically so that, if they ever discontinued the line, you'd immediately be unable to change the oil or refill the gas tank?

It's one thing if a product happens to have necessary limits. It's another thing for the product to be purposefully and artificially crippled so that it will not function as expected.

Re:Why is this news? Because it's Microsoft.

[canajin56 (660655)]

While you may think that's a ridiculous car analogy, it's not that far from reality. My parents' Saturn car, for example, has a special chip in the key to deactivate the anti-theft immobilizer. Even if you get another key cut at a locksmith, the key will open the door but will not start the car. So you have to spend $25 to get a new key cut by the dealership. If Saturn went under and you lost your key, you could no longer use your car. You can't even hotwire it easily, cus that's the whole point of the immobilizer in the first place.

Except that in this case it would be perfectly legal to get a mechanic to go and rip out the immobilizer circuit, whereas it's against the DCMA to strip the DRM from your WMA files. Then again, who cares about the legality, you can download a stripper to remove DRM from WMA files. It only works if you have the key in your "keyring", so people with MSN Music would have to strip it before changing OS or reinstalling their OS.

Re:Why is this news? Because it's Microsoft.

[enoz (1181117)]

Can you possibly still not get it?

Your Minivan will continue to "work" after Ford closes it's DRM Factories, however if you decide to move house you cannot take your Minivan with you.

If you renovate your house, your Minivan will cease to work.

You can never sell your Minivan.

Serves you right for buying a DRM Minivan, I say.

Not quite

[symbolset (646467)]

I believe the term "Plays For Now(tm)" is more appropriate. Goes for all DRM content too.