A Copyright Cop In Every Zune

Mike writes "As if the Zune wasn't already crippled and unpopular enough, now comes a story indicating that Microsoft may build a 'Copyright Cop' into every Zune. A future update of the software for Microsoft's portable media player will likely include a 'feature' that will block unauthorized copies of copyrighted videos from being played on it. The president of digital distribution for NBC, J. B. Perrette, said the plan is to create 'filtering technology that allows for playback of legitimately purchased content versus non-legitimately purchased content.' Of course there's no way to tell legitimate content that you create from 'non-legitimate' content, so this looks like just another nail in the coffin of the Zune." Update: 05/08 20:50 GMT by T : From Microsoft employee Cesar Menendez comes this categorical denial of any such filtering mechanism.

Nothing new there

[nurb432 (527695)]

Its just 'trusted computing' rearing its ugly head.

Re:Nothing new there

[lgw (121541)]

For the most part, people just don't care about DRM or trusted computing because it doesn't affect them. However, this "copyright cop" sort of thing is sure to be noticed by the average user. Microsoft seems to be betting heavily on selling DRMed platforms, and I wonder whether they've lost their way, and are listening to partners instead of customers. The Zune has not been an astounding success, and going out of their way to antagonize their customers in a market where they don't have any sort of market dominance seems like hubris on Mocrosoft's part.

Re:Nothing new there

[aurispector (530273)]

I'm not sure M$ ever did really listen to their customers; they certainly have never seemed to put them ahead of their partners.

The music companies have been sort of backing away from DRM, but the movie industry isn't. It's not clear if they're getting industry pressure to support DRM in exchange for some sort of agreement (exclusivity?) allowing video downloads for the zune. After the "play for sure" debacle, who would trust them anyway? There are plenty of fine alternatives to Ipod and Zune anyway.

MS do listen to their customers...

[Roger W Moore (538166)]

I'm not sure M$ ever did really listen to their customers

Sorry but MS are very good at listening to customers. Its just that they only listen to their business customers and nobody else. This worked extremely well for them with Windows and Office and in theory should have worked with the Zune too. Unfortunately they do not seem to have realized that in this case their business customers, the RIAA, are employing kamikazee tactics. They are more interested in ensuring that nobody can ever listen to content in a manner they have not personally approved than they are about making a successful, profitable product.

Re:Nothing new there

[dabooda (412228)]

Your polarised view of people that use flash vs HDD players is a little narrow.

I wouldn't take a HDD based player jogging and I sure wouldn't listen to 80 gb of music between dockings in day to day life. I would only consider a HDD player if I were to travel for 2 years without a PC.

Re:Nothing new there

[dangitman (862676)]

You do make a point, though. This is because the majority of people who buy iPods are more interested in it as a fashion item than as an mp3 player.

Got any evidence of that? most people I encounter with iPods are listening to them on the bus or train - and have them buried away in their pockets. They are also usually trying to avoid contact with other people. If it were about a fashion statement, then wouldn't they be:

1. Not listening to them
2. Showing them off
3. Only using Apple-branded headphones, rather than swapping for better-sounding ones that aren't white

No, they actually seem to be using them to listen to music. I'm not sure how an iPod can even be a "fashion statement" these days, as so many people own them.

Flash-based mp3 players are "sexier," and the people who buy them don't need a lot of storage, as their collections generally consist of a few CD's worth of singles. Hard drive based mp3 players are more for enthusiasts who have been collecting albums their entire life.

Again, complete nonsense. How do you know what music is on people's flash-based players? I'm a big music enthusiast, and have been collecting all my life. My player holds only 4GB, despite the collection on my computer being around 100GB. There's no reason to carry all my music around with me everywhere I go. Every time I sync my player, a fresh selection of music is updated - and new episodes of podcasts are uploaded, and old podcast episodes deleted. Seriously, why do I have to carry my entire music collection around just for a couple of hours of commuting?

It's quite funny the ego and delusions that some people (typically self-described geeks) have over this simple issue of portable music. Yeah, anybody who has a smaller player than you must have terrible taste in music, oh elite collector.

Re:Nothing new there

[goatpunch (668594)]

most people I encounter with iPods are listening to them on the bus or train - and have them buried away in their pockets.

That does raise the obvious question... how do you know they're iPods if you can't see them? They might all be listening to Zunes...

Re:Nothing new there

[Xtifr (1323)]

Actually, I suspect that more people are buying iPods simply because that's the only name they know. My brother, who sort-of knows better came to me asking if I could recommend a good brand of iPod, since he knew I'd been comparison shopping recently. Of course, he meant "portable mp3 player", but to most people that is spelled "iPod". So I recommended the Samsung...iPod. :)

Re:Nothing new there

[dangitman (862676)]

but they chose the iPod over the Zune or one of the millions of other players to make a fashion statement.

How do you know this? I suspect you are psychologically projecting. It's a pretty typical nerd thing. Anything that's popular, or anything that's attractive must just be an empty fashion thing. True nerds choose things that are ugly and unpopular!

Did you ever think they might be popular because people enjoy using them? I never met anyone who bought it for fashion. Most I know bought it because they tried a friend's and really liked the way it worked, and it changed their music listening habits.

At the very least, people are buying iPods because everyone else is doing it, which itself is a form fashion statement.

No, it's not. It might be following fashion, but "making a fashion statement" is about doing something different and daring - like wearing sandal with socks when everybody else is wearing Nilkes.

I'm going to get bashed by Apple fanatics, but if people were buying based on features, they wouldn't be buying iPods. The iPod is nice, but feature-wise there are better players.

Such as? And don't you think things like form factor and user interface count in purchasing decisions? A list of features is useless is something is not easy to use. But in any case, the original iPod was by far the most advanced player on the market. It was the smallest hard drive player, and the only one with high-speed Firewire transfers. Hell, many players were still using AA or AAA batteries at the time!

There's iTunes lock-in, but even that isn't a big issue anymore because there are ways around their DRM, and there are other music sellers.

people don't use iTunes because of lock-in, they use it because they enjoy using it, and it makes things easy. This was actually the biggest failure of other players. They came with craptacular software.

That more or less leaves "fashion statement" as the reason for iPod popularity over other players.

Only if you ignore the actual reasons that most people buy iPods.

Re:Nothing new there

[noewun (591275)]

Sorry, but you're just wrong. Obviously people are using their iPods to play music, but they chose the iPod over the Zune or one of the millions of other players to make a fashion statement. At the very least, people are buying iPods because everyone else is doing it, which itself is a form fashion statement.

Fascinating insight. I eagerly look forward to the data behind it. I assume you have done a thorough study of people's buying habits, using a random sample of a large cohort of people who have bought mp3 players. I would ask that you please send me raw data, the questions you asked, and the selection criteria you used in picking your cohort so I can check for any bias in your sampling.

What? You have no such data? You've made no such study? Your conclusion is based on nothing more than your own judgements, preconceptions and projections?

Oh, yeah. I'm on Slashdot.

Now, I've bought two iPods. I bought my first in the winter of 2003. Over five years later it's still going strong, on the original battery, despite the fact I have not been gentle with it. Given that record of reliability, I just bought my second one (a 32 GB Touch) because I am pretty sure I can use the crap out of the thing and it will still be running strong five years from no. I'm not sure how that fits into your taxonomy. Personally, I find the "fashion statement" line of reasoning is usually forwarded by those who can't believe their logic isn't shared by everyone else on the planet.

Re:Nothing new there

[vought (160908)]

The iPod is nice, but feature-wise there are better players.

To most consumers, the iPod does have features other players don't have. Because those features are not listed on the box doesn't mean the features aren't included.

Most people see styling and design as very important features.

No one wants to carry an ugly music player, even if that ugly music player has more technical features, costs a little less, or has a different name.

That more or less leaves "fashion statement" as the reason for iPod popularity over other players.

And what's wrong with that? It's a better widget. People vote with their dollars overwhelmingly. There are other music players for people who don't value styling as a primary feature - just like there are stores like J.C. Penney for people who don't want to shop at Nordstrom.

Re:Nothing new there

[fullgandoo (1188759)]

Microsoft has already denied this: http://www.news.com/8301-13860_3-9938650-56.html?tag=nefd.top [news.com] But since this is slashdot, let's just ignore it while there is an opportunity for MS bashing.

Microsoft seems to be unable to deliver.

[Futurepower(R) (558542)]

MOD PARENT UP.

"A clunky form factor that's trying hard to match competition from three years ago."

Is the Zune the Vista of music players, or is Vista the Zune of operating systems?

Microsoft seems unable to do business sensibly. Maybe Gates and Ballmer are getting tired of working every day. What motivates a billionaire to keep producing mediocre results?

Re:Microsoft seems to be unable to deliver.

[twistedsymphony (956982)]

Have you ever actually used the Zune interface? Personally I find it far easier and quicker to navigate than any other portable media player on the market, including the iPod and the iPhone. IMO it's one of the few things they actually got right wit the device.

This new DRM "feature" is another story, but don't troll on something you know nothing about just because you're an Anti-MS fanboy.

The New York Times says not to buy a Zune.

[Futurepower(R) (558542)]

Maybe you shouldn't be annoyed with Twitter, in this case. His extremely negative evaluation was only as negative as that of the New York Times. Quote:

"If you like to download the latest episodes of "Heroes" or other NBC shows from BitTorrent, maybe you shouldn't buy a Microsoft Zune to watch them on. [my emphasis]

"A future update of the software for Microsoft's portable media player may well include a feature that will block unauthorized copies of copyrighted videos from being played on it."

Consider this: Someone bought a Zune, believing that he understood the features of the product. But later, Microsoft, in an "update", changes the way it works. That's nasty. It teaches customers that they can't trust Microsoft or a Microsoft product.

Re:The New York Times says not to buy a Zune.

[dedazo (737510)]

You're missing the point. He's not annoyed at twitter because of "negative evaluation" or even the ever-hilarious "M$" thing that just never gets old. It's the fact that he's posted in this article with three different accounts already. Very soon now you're going to see three different people jump into the thread, agree with him and complain if there's any moderation he doesn't like.

Seriously, is there some sort of reality distortion field problem here where someone with seven or eight accounts that humps all over Slashdot shilling his own posts can happily get away with it, no repercussions? Screw the controls that this website has in place to prevent things like these, along with crapflooders, GNAA trolls and erotic stories about CmdrTaco and CowboyNeal?

There is a reason why his first two accounts are in negative karma hell, but he doesn't understand that people mod him down, not his opinions. As if criticizing Microsoft on Slashdot was reason to be modded down? People are tired of him, but he just blames everything on Microsoft [slashdot.org], claims that anyone who disagrees with him "hates" him, and then proceeds to create seven or eight accounts, and reply to himself so that moderators think "wow, this gnutoo/inTheLoo/Erris/westbake/willeyhill/twitter/Mactrope fellow sure has a lot of friends who agree with him" and play the karma game to his full satisfaction.

Aside from my personal dislike of his "evangelism" style that does more harm than good to free software, that should not be allowed. I don't reply to myself pretending I'm someone else to see if I get modded up, I say what I think and I'm responsible for it. Within the community that is Slashdot, that means you are moderated up or down and deal with the consequences of that. The next time you find yourself getting stacked upon on a discussion thread by three people who sound exactly the same you'll see what the problem is with sockpuppets.

Anyway, it's just the internet, and some people take all this too seriously (probably including myself sometimes) but even here there are rules and an etiquette that people follow or things go the way of Kuro5hin and Digg.

(And now I'm sure he'll use one of those sockpuppets to mod me down like he's been doing the past few weeks with his gnutoo and inTheLoo accounts, which are the only ones that are not posting at zero or less for obvious trolling.)

Huh? Zune?

[Frosty Piss (770223)]

I've heard of this Zune, but never actually seen one out in the wild. Do they actually exist? In other words, the Zune can have as much DRM as it likes. No one who cares about that sort of thing will buy one anyway. In fact who does buy them?

Re:Huh? Zune?

[zappepcs (820751)]

Yeah, I was kind of wondering how many nails you need in the coffin of a dead product? I'd think the ones in there now are enough to keep it buried as a footnote for MS historians to bleat about on Pub Quiz nights?

Re:Huh? Zune?

[Shadow Wrought (586631)]

I was kind of wondering how many nails you need in the coffin of a dead product?

Its not so much the nails in the coffin you need as stakes in the heart. Unfortunately Zune's can only be killed by legitimately purchased stakes.

Re:

[Fishchip (1203964)]

I read in some paper or another today that MS is 'finally' bringing the Zune to Canada in June. Weird, two bits of news on the Zune in one day.

If this thing is so dead... why are we getting hit with it just now? =P Oh, the kicker is that the Zune online store won't even be available in Canada until some unknown date.

Methinks it's going to be DOA up here.

Re:

[Digi-John (692918)]

There are some people who love Microsoft products, use Visual Studio to develop C# code, run Vista and swear up and down that they've never had any problems with it, and have purchased a Zune. I've known one such person. Besides him, I've never seen anyone with a Zune.

Re:Huh? Zune?

[Hatta (162192)]

There are people who enjoy getting their nuts stepped on too. To each his own I guess.

Apple DRM is irrrelevent

[thermian (1267986)]

I'm sick of hearing about this. Lets dispel some myths.

1: You can copy music on and off an iPod with great ease. There is no magic DRM preventing this *at all*.

2: Apple are quite happy to let you rip their music to cd, and then to mp3. It's no different, and sounds no different from ripping a bought music cd.

3: The iPod only has DRM on it because Apple new they would get sued to fuck if they didn't, or if they went around allowing direct circumvention. By allowing copying to audio cd they avoid this via the fair use claim.

4: A *lot* of available iPod content is not DRM'd anyway.

Re:Apple DRM is irrrelevent

[blhack (921171)]

1: You can copy music on and off an iPod with great ease. There is no magic DRM preventing this *at all*.

YOu're right, they would never Intentionally take measures [arstechnica.com] to prevent third parties from writing software that allows for transfer to and from the ipod.

2: Apple are quite happy to let you rip their music to cd, and then to mp3. It's no different, and sounds no different from ripping a bought music cd.

You're right! How gracious of apple to ALLOW you to transfer a piece of your property to another piece of your property! Its almost like we're PAYING thing for this or something.

3: The iPod only has DRM on it because Apple new they would get sued to fuck if they didn't, or if they went around allowing direct circumvention. By allowing copying to audio cd they avoid this via the fair use claim.

Please cite at least 1 example of a company being sued for creating a device that allows people to play MP3s. You might want to let Justin Frankel know that he should have been "sued to fuck" (whatever that meansd) for creating winamp instead of chilling in his multi-million dollar home studio.

4: A *lot* of available iPod content is not DRM'd anyway.

Right AGAIN! How GRACIOUS of apple to allow you to play the music that you purchased on anything other than their blessed device!

Re:Apple DRM is irrrelevent

[jimicus (737525)]

Please cite at least 1 example of a company being sued for creating a device that allows people to play MP3s. You might want to let Justin Frankel know that he should have been "sued to fuck" (whatever that meansd) for creating winamp instead of chilling in his multi-million dollar home studio.

Wasn't the Rio the subject of various lawsuits?

Re:Apple DRM is irrrelevent

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746)]

2: Apple are quite happy to let you rip their music to cd, and then to mp3. It's no different, and sounds no different from ripping a bought music cd.

This isn't quite true. Most music on iTunes is lower quality than a CD and in a different format. Burning it to CD results in a slightly lower quality yet and significantly lower than a purchased CD. Ripping it to a new format will depend upon what quality you normally rip content at, but it will be less than what is available on a purchased CD and worse than a purchased iTunes song.

That said, the quality may be acceptable, and in fact I don't have a problem with the audio quality of songs ripped in this way. I'd further argue that the way most CDs are mastered these days results in a much bigger hit to actual audio quality than anything Apple is doing.

3: The iPod only has DRM on it because Apple new they would get sued to fuck if they didn't, or if they went around allowing direct circumvention. By allowing copying to audio cd they avoid this via the fair use claim.

This is just untrue. Apple not including DRM does not give them any real legal liability, even for contributory copyright infringement. Apple included DRM to get buy in from the RIAA. Without that buy in, the iPod would have had a much slower uptake and been less popular. They needed a way to buy and load mainstream music easier than going to the store and for that, they needed the cooperation of the RIAA... hence DRM. Fair use has basically nothing to do with Apple themselves.

4: A *lot* of available iPod content is not DRM'd anyway.

This is true for audio, and Apple has been pushing hard to get rid of it, both for ease of use reasons to sell more iPods and because it is a potential antitrust issue.

Re:They exist.

[CRCulver (715279)]

An iPod does not require using iTunes. You can put Rockbox on an iPod and simply drag the music files directly onto the iPod mounted as a drive. There's also plenty of other programs that can read and write to an iTunes database.

PlaysForSure

[Carnildo (712617)]

This is a demonstration of Microsoft's new media-compatibility standard. They're calling it "Plays? Yeah sure!"

Bonus Feature

[NickFortune (613926)]

I hear that if you're wiling to pay a premium, they'll arrange for Steve Ballmer to come over and kick you in the nuts, personally.

Although, I expect that's only for corporate customers, OEMs, since Steve's time is valuable.

Re:

[Uncle Focker (1277658)]

If I'm spending the money, I'd rather that he throw a chair at me.

thankfully, it's BS

[Yurka (468420)]

"...will work with [NBC] to try to develop..." is classic software marketing BS - three weasel verbs in succession, a minor masterpiece. Translation: "This feature? Oh, sure, we have it. I mean, we'll have it in the next release. I mean, the crack team of our coding monkeys is going to make it their priority. Now just sign here, initial here and here."

I can't see this going anywhere... yet.

[Mongoose Disciple (722373)]

According to TFA, Google and other companies are exploring having filtering technology similar to this to eliminate copyrighted content from their shared video sites. Unless/until that happens, I can't really see even Microsoft making this move.

As TFA points out, MS is way at the back of the portable mp3/video/etc. pack and it knows it can't afford to stick more "features" in that will drive users away. Now, the NBC dude quoted in the article brings up the idea that through whatever the Zune store is called they'd have options to offer whole seasons of a show at a discount instead of being forced to the $2/episode no matter what pricing standard of iTunes, and I could see that drawing people to buy the episodes from Microsoft -- but not so long as the alternative is to get them free for the iPod from YouTube. A generation raised with free TV and VCRs hesitates even less about 'stealing' TV episodes than it does about songs.

So unless YouTube etc. put a filter in place that successfully blocks this same content I can't see it going anywhere on portable players so long as Apple refuses to do it to the market-dominant iPod.

No way

[MooseMuffin (799896)]

Sure Microsoft makes plenty of bad decisions, but there's no way they're dumb enough to think that zunes aren't selling because customers want more content restrictions.

On the other hand, I suppose they are dumb enough and arrogant enough to believe that they could compete with itunes if they kissed the asses of enough content providers. They can't, nor can anyone else really. That battle has already been fought and apple is winning by an overwhelming margin. Their best bet is to make quality players with as much compatibility as possible and forget the music stores and DRM ass-kissing that comes with running one.

They clearly just don't get it -

[Gat0r30y (957941)]

"In the short term, this will not win us a lot of friends,â he said. âoeIn the long term, the consumer wants there to be quality premium-produced content, and in order for that to continue to be a viable business, there needs to be significant protection around it."

Yes, the consumer wants quality premium-produced content, and they want to be able to play it on what they want when they want. And unless that is what they are offering, pirates are going to take the time to remove any protection around it no matter how significant, and give it away for free. As long as this their view, they aren't going to have a viable business, but when it dawns on them that the consumer is ultimately in charge of the situation now, and network stooges aren't, they will release content in an intelligent manner - so the consumer can access it when they want, and on what they want.

Non-Legitimately Purchased Content?

[Migraineman (632203)]

"... non-legitimately purchased content"? At first I thought this was editorializing by the submitter, but no, TFA contains that exact quote. I garner two ugly conclusions from this statement from Mr. Perrette:
- 1) Your device will soon only play "purchased" content. No home movies for you.
- 2) Your device will soon only play content purchased from us.

I think Microsoft has figured out what Step 2 is:
1. Create media player with subscription services.
2. Shoot self in foot by crippling said player to the point no one wants it.
3. Profit!?

Battery Killer

[dloyer (547728)]

Not to mention that the extra processing needed for the wiz bang water marking technology will reduce battery life.

How much? Who knows, but extra design constraints always create compromises and battery life is one place it is likely to show up.

Awww

[GrayCalx (597428)]

I have a zune and I love it. These replies are hurting my feelings.

I just couldn't deal with the small screen of the similarly priced ipod. The downside though is that there are no freaking accessories. You can go to any online site and find 150 different cases for the iPod. From diamond encrusted cases to cases cut from the t-shirts of workers from sweatshops. Same online store you'll find like 2 for the zune. And they both cost $249.99.

The 'Uncool' of Microsoft

[Count Sessine (1135193)]

OK Microsoft-faithful and Apple-haters - listen up. This is why everyone says that Microsoft is 'uncool'.

In spite of a few missteps as of late, Microsoft is still the biggest, richest, most powerful company in tech today. And yet, they have their tongues so far up the record and movie industry's *ss that it isn't even funny anymore. No one respects an obsequious brown-noser. If they had any spine at all, they would tell the record and movie execs the Truth (that they're living on borrowed time) and that the only way to continue to make any money at all is to trust their customers.

Apple was upbraiding the record industry execs for a good three years during and through the Napster debacle. Apple was telling them that customer-hostile DRM that took away obvious and visible consumer rights wouldn't work, they were telling them that the bottom would fall out of the CD business, and they were offering Apple's services as a customer-friendly alternative to some of the loser businesses the record industry was trying at the time (like PressPlay). It's not like the folks at Apple were geniuses for recognizing all of these things - it's just that they have their own protected platform and they're in the software business so they know full-well how futile copy-protection really is.

When the record execs finally realized that everything Apple had been saying was right, they had lost a good fraction of their business and they were desperate to try something new.

The guys who run Microsoft will never have the balls to tell a potential business partner that. They have enough money in the bank to BUY any one of the record companies that they're sucking up to, and yet they behave like the record companies' servile bitch. And that's why they'll never be considered 'cool'.

Something we all needed

[lewp (95638)]

Finally, a reason not to buy a Zune.

Learn from Vista

[gilesjuk (604902)]

Vista is DRM and restriction overload and doesn't sell. Zune barely sells now, it's not even available in the UK.

Good luck Microsoft. Customers buy features not ball and chains.

What this?

[xbytor (215790)]

"non-legitimately purchased content"

How do I non-legitimately purchase content? Are they talking about black-market Seinfeld videos?

I'm probably too late to get in on the discussion

[blhack (921171)]

Have you noticed a new trend in digital media? NBC has most of their shows online for free. South Park has all of their online for free. Hulu.com hosts more TV shows that most people would want to watch in a lifetime online for FREE!

The problem with all of these services is that you have to put sitting in front of a computer to use them. IF these media companies can figure out a way to put their content (and with it, their ads) onto a portable device...well, then DRM be damned, I'm buying whatever device that IS.

This is a strategic, relationship building move by microsoft. NOthing more.

Microsoft's Zune blogger says no

[Programmerman (1166739)]

http://zuneinsider.com/archive/2008/05/07/just-so-no-one-gets-the-wrong-idea.aspx [zuneinsider.com]

They say this isn't coming or planned.

Re:So no more ripping FLV vids from YouTube?

[plover (150551)]

I've been doing that for years on my SanDisk MP3 player: downloading the .FLV videos from YouTube and converting them to SanDisk compatible videos. So now you can't do that on the Zune?

No, I think the summary is misleading and people are misinterpreting it. Nowhere did they say "uncopyrighted videos will be squelched." They're saying they'll find a way to squelch copyrighted videos. That might mean some hidden content, watermark, or digital signature would be used to identify copyrighted media.

My guess is they'll troll through YouTube and BitTorrent looking for copyrighted stuff, taking a hash of it, and comparing stuff you download against the list of copyrighted hashes.

Of course, the obvious next answer will be a format-ripping program that performs some random permutations to the media, preventing any two copies from having the same signature...

Re:So no more ripping FLV vids from YouTube?

[Technician (215283)]

I've been doing that for years on my SanDisk MP3 player

Consumers are good at finding what they want and the features they want. Some folks will be fine with the player and it's subscription service. The rest of us will find players that will play our content ripped from DVD's, shared, and downloaded from YouTube.

I often get asked "What computer should I buy?" I always tell them "Find the software you want to run and then buy the haredware that will run it.". With portable media players, this is still very true. If you want to play MP3's and .flv files, only buy a player that will play it.

If you want a player that plays music purchased from the Zune site, you may wish to consider one, but remember, it won't play songs from iTunes. It looks like it also won't play YouTube rips.

You can vote for DRM with your wallet, or you can vote against it. Vote wisely.

Re:So no more ripping FLV vids from YouTube?

[NormalVisual (565491)]

Well, every now and again one gets through the filter. I understand they're working on that though.

Re:Watermarks

[dmeranda (120061)]

Except that watermarks still don't work.

• * They don't expire when the work goes in the public domain after its copyright also expires.
• * They do not take into account Fair Use exemptions.
• * They do not equally protect all content producers; only those who can pay the cartel licensing fees.

Re:Watermarks

[John Hasler (414242)]

To the publishers these are features, not bugs.

Re:Getting with the times.

[plover (150551)]

Nope. You are forgetting what drives Microsoft (and all corporations, really): money.

In today's world, Microsoft MUST continue to put out new versions of Office and Windows, otherwise people will not give them money. But would you put out $400 for a new copy of Office 2007 to replace your copy of Office 2003, just to get the Ribbon bar, or to get the new and improved Pashtun grammar checker? And if so, will you put out another $400 in 2009 for another new copy, to get the ultra-dynamic margin tool? Probably not. So in Microsoft's eyes, you are not sending them enough money.

Microsoft's business plan has no way to continually extract money from its customers over the long haul. So they are forced to invent new "features" to keep people upgrading, in order to churn that money. But Office and XP are "good enough" for most people. The churn is slowing.

Where Microsoft is trying to go tomorrow is the subscription model. You'll buy a subscription to Office Forever which will cost you only $9.99 per month, (or whatever the rate will be.) The OS in conjunction with the TPM chip will enforce that only a legitimate, paid subscription will be able to run. Illicit copies will be prevented from saving, or crippled from editing, or whatever.

Microsoft believes they need the lock-in DRM model to work in order to survive over the long term. They are deathly afraid of Linux, because it's nipping at their heels of functionality and usability already, and a free alternative that runs whatever software you want is the only thing that could stop their model from working. Look to the future for Microsoft to push for incorporating the TPM chip into the BIOS, so only a blessed and approved (and paid for) OS will boot on the hardware of the future. So, any technology or business deal that helps them leverage DRM is a step in the right direction -- for them.

Re:

[WhatAmIDoingHere (742870)]

Even Apple tells you how to defeat their DRM. Burn the songs to a CD. Rip the CD. You now have files with no DRM and proper tagging (thanks to iTunes using CDDB).