Microsoft Preps 'Janus' Music Copy-Prevention Scheme 466
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft is expected to unveil copy-protection software this summer that will for the first time give portable digital music players access to rented tunes from all-you-can-eat subscription services -- a development that some industry executives believe will shake up the online music business." Janus is the Roman god of doorways, gates, passages, preventing people from copying music, etc.
Are they kidding? (Score:5, Insightful)
Happy Trails!
Erick
History *will* repeat itself.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pay for time limited, rental media? Has Circuit City's DIVX fiasco taught them nothing?
If there were a demand for such an item I can see them working on it but the media companies try these silly schemes that have no consumer interest. Naturally they'll end up somehow blaming P2P for this system's inevitable failure.
Divx, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Same ol' Same ol' - confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
So to start with, you'll have to get a different player that supports this "secure clock". Then you have these issues:
Music service executives said they were still in negotiations with record labels over how to treat the new technology. Allowing people to bring thousands of songs at a time to portable players may wind up costing more than the $10 a month that most subscription services charge today, the executives said.
Well that's certainly going to help - keep up the level of confusuin with different rate plans based on what you might want to do.
Nevertheless, some music services are eager to drive more consumers to subscription plans, since per-song download stores have tiny or even nonexistent profit margins.
Because what always excites the consumer is helping a company make more money.
I would think artists would not be too fond of subscription services - they must get quite a bit less (if anything?) from such services. As someone who wants to help out an artist why would I want to support a subscription services? Seems like just another refined means of ripping off people who make the music.
When will they learn.... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Making bits uncopyable is like making water un-wet." -- Bruce S.
Copy protection (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, right.
I remember those things from the 80s - never stopped C64 game sharing.
Pricing? (Score:3, Insightful)
On a side note, unless they find a way to copy-protect sound waves, they will never be able to defeat copy protections. You can always play the song and record it in real time on an analog source.
I could be wrong, and if I am I'll eat a bug, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Perfect. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perfect.
Seems like a strange thing to name a DRM scheme. (Score:5, Insightful)
So says Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Re:When will they learn.... (Score:5, Insightful)
=)
Re:History *will* repeat itself.. (Score:3, Insightful)
+ Only available at Circuit City
+ Only on crappy, non-brandname players
+ Smaller movie library
+ All DIVX player play DVD, not all DVD players play DIVX - the standard was obvious.
In short, it was basically betamaxed out of existence. Besides, just because geeks hate the rental model doesn't mean Joe Sixpack wouldn't find it appealing.
Why Rent When You Can Own? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) I don't want to "rent" my music. I want to buy.
2) I don't want my music in crappy WMA format.
3) The tinfoil hat wearer in me sees this as a way for the music/software industries to indoctrinate the next generation of consumers with the idea that you don't "own" anything.
As the sidebar in the article says "If fans of iPod-like devices can be convinced to drop the idea of owning song files, they could shift to paying a subscription fee for ongoing access
Pass.
High Cost of DRM... (Score:5, Insightful)
Before MP3s were Satan, I had a stereo system (hi-fi for us old folks) that could easily "rip" CDs, records, or tapes to cheap portable media (blank tapes). It didn't seem to be an issue then...
I would actually be very interested in an all-you-can-eat music subscription, provided it gave me files in the MP3 format. I have an MP3 player in my house, office, car, and person, but I don't have a Janus player anywhere!
Stop spending all your money trying to stop me from sharing stuff, just sell me stuff I want.
As a Canadian... (Score:3, Insightful)
Come on, people. (Score:5, Insightful)
File this under "Too little; too late". If this was here 10 years ago it would have ruled the market, even 2 years ago before iPod/iTunes made legitimate music buying easy* it would have had a chance. Now it's just another unwanted product; at best a footnote in a future history book.
* I'm thinking specifically of when the iTunes Music Store came to Windows. To head off the 'no ogg/Linux support, so no business from me!' posts, that most assuredly applies to this new product as well and is pointless in a comparison.
Guaranteed hard-failure of player? (Score:5, Insightful)
So then - what happens when the power for this embedded secure-clock runs out? Your player needs to go in for repair, as I doubt the "secure clock" is user-servicable.
Or, perahps the chip just counts up as long as it has power. So if you only use it now and then you might be able to keep the song-embers alive for years as you slow time to the device.
I guess it won't matter since the system will be cracked before it becomes an issue, but it's kind of like buying a car with a pre-wired explosive charge under the hood set to go off in severeal years. "Not to worry!" the salesman says, "You'll have a different car in seven years anyway!".
Fits MS perfectly (Score:5, Insightful)
Subscription Models suck.. (Score:5, Insightful)
well id never get a subscription to drive my errr ummm car.... or live in my apartment..
The general public is used to subscriptions
*we* may refuse
Re:Serious question (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting hacked would therefore come as no big surprise to Apple/Jobs. But when you add it up:
Unlimited burns + no expiration + multiple devices + multiple computers = Not worth the trouble.
The iTunes model is so open, there is little reason to hack it. Of those who would want to, you then have a subset of those with the skills to do so, and you end up with an insignificant number.
The new MS model, with an expiration date, screams for a hack. But then again, there are a lot of time limited software demos, and I don't suppose that anyone tries to hack those...
Re:History *will* repeat itself.. (Score:5, Insightful)
An example would be:
user pays $20 / month for ANY 20 songs from the library. He picks his favorite 20 songs. A new artist comes out with a PHAT NEW TRACK that he MUST have.
He can either:
a) "return" or "expire" one of the tracks that he has oustanding
or
b) upgrade his subscription to $25 per month for any 40 songs.
I think they're trying to lock people into a subscription model because it keeps revenue streams alive (for the company) and it's [relatively] difficult for people to drop subscriptions. For example, if you had to choose between paying your internet bill or buying the latest and greatest X-PS4-Game-Box-Cube; you'll probably be more likely to pay your internet bill (or music bill in this case).
I'm not certain that's their idea, but it sounds like that's what the business plan is at this point.
It's kind of brilliant from a business standpoint, but let's just see if the market takes kindly to it.
Re:High Cost of DRM... (Score:1, Insightful)
On second thought, it'll neva happen.
And I'll never give up my iPod either...
Re:Serious question (Score:1, Insightful)
It's all a little cover to get the RIAA to feel better about adopting Internet business models.
Whether or not people want to rent music is a different question (maybe, given a nice "radio" streaming interface, they will).
Re:I've already hacked it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and this is where it goes 'wrong': recording a song non-digitally (analoge) isn't really good for the song's quality.
Re:I've already hacked it. (Score:3, Insightful)
True enough, but it didn't stop generations of people copying vinyl LPs onto tape. The quality doesn't have to be "perfect", just "good enough" for Joe Schmo. It's only those intent on piracy who will be peturbed about the degradation in quality.
Re:Are they kidding? (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Record compaines & distributors will continue to make a lot of money.
2. The cost saved by "hacking" is fruitless.
3. I finially get the music model I've been waiting so long for.
Although we will have to wait some time until this can be streamed to ALL devices, home radio, portable player, office,
a telling quote (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why online music purchasing is in such a sad state: it's because of people like this guy. He and others believe they can tell consumers (not "customers," not even "people," but "consumers") that the DRM widget du jour really is what they want when they look to buy music online. Screw what their customers actually ask for, and never mind that positive shopping experiences and word-of-mouth advertising are every bit as important as the profit made on any one purchase; it's obviously far better to license some new technology almost guaranteed to be broken within three months, shove it down the throats of unwilling customers, and pass on the costs.
Guess what, pal. We don't want a "new type of experience," or people "changing attitudes towards what music really is" (whatever that even means). Just offer us unencumbered MP3s at a buck a song, and watch people flock to your service. Is that so hard to understand?
New poll (Score:2, Insightful)
A. 14-16
B. 16-18
C. 18-20
D. CowboyNeal
Re:I've already hacked it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither is encoding a song into mp3 format, or transmitting it over FM radio. The thing is, most people don't care, if they can get it for free. The small percentage of people who do care will either pay the subscription fee, or find a way around the DRM on the digital side.
Re:Subscription Models suck.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd like to quote... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I've already hacked it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Because taking discrete samples of an analog wave and interpolating that data to approximate the missing data is always as good as the raw analog data. I'm not saying analog is flat-out superior, but I think it's a mistake to make the blanket statement that digital is better too.
Re:I've already hacked it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:History *will* repeat itself.. (Score:4, Insightful)
These situations are almost always bound to fail, because the law of supply and demand is being ignored. If there is no demand for your product (well, except for 5 Record Companies), and there are hundreds of millions of people all the world that want to see your product fail... what does that say?
It says to me that Microsoft (which isn't a stupid company, no matter what you personally think) is getting paid a LOT of money to give something to the Record Companies that they can stuff down the throats of hundreds of millions of people, whether they like it or not.
Kinda sounds like the "pop music" concept, doesn't it? This means it may just work...
They don't realize: in order to be successful... (Score:3, Insightful)
Most won't use this.. and I'd be surprised at those who do. Who in their right mind wants to be restricted like this?
Re:Serious question (Score:5, Insightful)
But Jobs has a grasp of the whole DRM thing that Gates doesn't seem to be close to realizing.
If we had some DRM which REALLY freaking worked. I mean, actually was something that actually protected the rights of the digital media AND more importantly didn't annoy the end user/listener, then it wouldn't be hacked.
Jobs went as far as they felt they could go given existing practices and ended up with a good system, that doesn't annoy users, and that does make it non-trivial to pirate. Yes, you can do it, but it takes a few steps, and a little bit of knowledge. People are intrensically lazy, so aren't just going to do it the majority of the time.
(Also, do you have any Idea how many people out there *can't* figure out how to write a cd?)
Any whokoewho.. Just like parent piped, iTunes got it exactly right. It's a level of protection, and it makes you feel good about following it. BIG difference to the M$ approach.
M$: "Where do you want to go today...as long it's where we tell you."
The're trying to play some demigod rear guard by dictating how people live their lives on the computer. I see this Januas getting stompped faster then DeCSS.
The hackers' end goal is probably not theft (Score:5, Insightful)
"Unlimited burns + no expiration + multiple devices + multiple computers = Not worth the trouble"
As you say, not much incentive to hack if you can do what you want with the downloads. Notice that this supports the theory that hacking DRM has nothing to do with "stealing" music; the real motivation is to defeat the crippling restrictions on usage.
Microsoft + expiration date + music drm = another hacker victory
you are right (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Online music done right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Its a russian website, leveraging questionable copyright principles, with no legal presence in north america.
I'm sorry to say that I would never trust them with my credit card, and I'd be worried about any time of persistent connection between my computer and their website. I hope I'm wrong and its a legitimate attempt at a new online business model, but I've seen enough SPAM and ebay and paypal scams to be very nervous about this proposition.
Re:Serious question (Score:5, Insightful)
All it takes is one.
Just putting fingers in the dyke (Score:3, Insightful)
Just another work-around that ignores the underlying problem! The reason why these stores have nonexistent profit margins is because the Music Labels are taking 99% - 100% of the song price. And, as we all know, it's not because most of it is going to the artist.
The issues of song pricing and profit margin on a pay-per-download scheme is never going to be resolved in a way that benefits consumer and provider (i.e. music download service) until the greedy middleman of the RIAA is taken out of the picture.
Even if you agree with the "plight" of the music industry and the fact that they do make upfront expenditures on artists and need to reclaim those funds plus return on investment (hey this is still America, no one is investing money with no expectation of something in return) - there comes a point when enough is enough. Just because they took a chance and invested $2M in Britney Spears to start her career hardly justifies taking in 75% of her music profits until the end of time. (note: figures are made up, but you get the picture, I'm just too lazy to find the real numbers)
Even the problem of recovering upfront investments (much of which is lost on artists who do not take off) would be moot if the music industry would stop the practice of paying these fledgling artists millions upfront and just provide them the tools to get their careers started, laying the burden of success on the would-be artists, and then if they fail the company is out a couple dozen thousand instead of half a million.
Forcing end-users into subscription service plans creates waste and bloated pricing (just look at the cable industry's package plans) and is a finger-in-the-dyke solution, when really the problem is miles upstream.
Re:what will happen (Score:3, Insightful)
iPod owners don't rent from the iTMS. (Score:3, Insightful)
iPod owners don't rent their music. Once you purchase a song from the iTMS you own that track and can listen to it forever on up to three PC's and an unlimited number of iPods. If Microsoft is looking to the success of iTunes and the iTMS as justification for their DRM rental scheme they are going to be sorely dissapointed with the ultimate results. Most users want to own their music, not rent it. iTunes and the iTMS is ownership with restictions which is a very different model then rental.
Re:Why Rent When You Can Own? (Score:5, Insightful)
The record companies are sitting on a goldmine that they don't even recognize. For example, I have spent 15 years looking for a CD of Camel's album, the Snow Goose. I had a cassette copy from a used record I borrowed from a friend; I finally found my used CD copy a few months ago. How on earth does it help the RIAA that I had to search for 15 years to get a legal copy of this album? And I was lucky I found it used for $9 (Canadian) rather than a new $40 import.
These record companies have already spent the money to record and master these CD; why should it ever go out of print? Surely making $5 is better than nothing; or do they really think I'll buy the latest American Idol CD they are expensively promoting instead?
Downloaded file not much less "physical". (Score:3, Insightful)
I should have been more specific about saying "rentals for music" since obviosuly people quite like movie rentals - I'm a Netflix subscriber myself! Music has a different use pattern though that I don't think works well with rentals.
Coolest thing ever! (Score:4, Insightful)
The rent vs. buy stuff seems like BS to me. It's like saying that HBO is worthless because you don't get access forever. Or people won't be willing to watch movies in a theater, because they don't actually end up owning anything. How many of you who are scoffing at this idea are Netflix subscribers?
I'll bet that the majority of CDs are listed to for a short time, and then filed away. So why clutter up your life with CDs that you won't listen to? And of course buying and renting music are not mutually exclusive, just as you can (gasp) rent DVDs and also buy them. Subscribing to a rental service doesn't prohibit you from also buying anything you want to listen to long-term.
OK Slashdotters, bring it on
Re:Serious question (Score:3, Insightful)
But the point about digital copying is that only one person has to crack it. After that it's just a question of distribution. Look at the warez scene - the big problem is finding distribution channels and staying one step ahead of the law (am I quoting the Dukes of Hazzard there?). Cracking the software in the first place is a relatively small piece of the puzzle. That's why the real battleground is not DRM, but P2P.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, I just don't get it. Microsoft is working on a new plan will let MS Windows users who buy a supported MP3 player have anytime/ anywhere access to all the music in their library. Want to listen to the new Britney Spears album, but don't want to spend the $10? Load it up on your WinPod, give it a listen & chuck it. If you commute by train 40 minutes a day, you could listen to 45 new albums each month for $10! This is a phenomenal value.
Ya, DRM sucks. SO what? DOn't think there's DRM on your beloved ShoutCast stations-- get a clue. 'course, they can all be circumvented in one way or another.
Shoutcast I'm sure is really cool, there's probably lots of good stuff. But my friend has Rhapsody, and while at his CPU, it's as close to the old Napster experience you can find. Listen to any song you want. In any order. $10/month. If I could put it on my iPod, I'd pay it in a minute.
And I still don't get the reaction. It isn't for everyone, but to see an announcement like this be universally derided is a sad reflection on the Slashdot community- it represents group-think at it's worse. MS comes out with an unambiguous improvement on an existing product, and 95% of the comments talk about how much this sucks. If Apple or MP3.com or Google or TiVo announced this service, the comments here would gloat about how MS will never be able to match it.
If there's ever been a better example of Slashdot groupthink (particularly of the anti-MS type), I'd like to see it (links please).
Re:History *will* repeat itself.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I would say i get more entertainment out of a CD then i would a dvd over the course of a year. I might use the dvd once or twice, but id listen to the album dozens of times. Good thing the prices are going down (well, still free... heh heh)
You're missing the point (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I've already hacked it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Write a fake CD drive that captures data and writes it back to the hard disk in wav format instead of burning it to a CD.
It would be a *lot* faster.
Re:Yep, I dub the effort MSMusIVX!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Using actual DRM means that you don't need to get validation every time you use the product, only when you download it. Being time-limited means that the media will likely expire before your hardware. And the content is delivered electronically.
In short, this is almost nothing like divx.
Ideal platform for disposable music. (Score:2, Insightful)
I purchase a lot of ITMS music tracks, and yes I play them on my iPod. But I also play them on my Squeezebox, my linux PCs, my PowerBook and my Empeg car stereo by immediately burning CDs after purchase, re-encoding to MP3 and filing the CD-R for my permanent library. Rentals don't fit into that picture at all.