Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Patents Process To "Unpirate" Music

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the very-merry-unbirthday-to-you dept.

Patents 241

Unequivocal writes "A new Wired magazine blog entry shows that Microsoft has patented a technique for preventing and reversing music piracy at the hardware level. 'Microsoft and Apple are thinking along the same lines when it comes to enabling users to copy music between their wireless devices. Certain cellphones already allow you to [transfer music] via Bluetooth file transfer, but Microsoft's patented idea would take the concept further, by allowing users to trade MP3s that may have come from file sharing networks to one another, expiring the song on the recipient's device after three plays, unless the user pays Microsoft a fee in order to continue to listen to the track, with a percentage going to the person who provided the song. As the abstract puts it, "even [the] resale of pirated media content [can] benefit... the copyright holder."'"

cancel ×

241 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Zune (-1, Troll)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853549)

Didn't Microsoft implement this almost a year ago with the Zune?

What's the news here?

Re:Zune (2, Insightful)

catbutt (469582) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853591)

Didn't Microsoft implement this almost a year ago with the Zune?
No.

(did you even read the article title?)

Re:Zune (0, Troll)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853633)

Yes, I read the whole article. This is exactly what the Zune does.

I guess the news is that it's patented...?

Re:Zune (3, Insightful)

caffeinemessiah (918089) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853689)

Here you go, a pointer to the summary for one who "read the whole article":

unless the user pays Microsoft a fee in order to continue to listen to the track, with a percentage going to the person who provided the song. As the abstract puts it, "even [the] resale of pirated media content [can] benefit... the copyright holder."'"

The key point is that you have a chance to convert "pirated" media to "unpirated" by paying for it. The difference seems to be that the MP3 in question could have been illegally obtained from a file sharing network rather than as the product of another Zune user's legal squirt onto you.

Re:Zune (4, Funny)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854003)

"another Zune user's legal squirt onto you"

no comment necessary :D

Re:Zune (1)

catbutt (469582) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853701)

How exactly does the current zune allow you to "unpirate" music?

Re:Zune (4, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853787)

Well, even unencumbered music that you "squirt" gets DRM applied to it (note: possibly in violation of the music's license, if it is released e.g. under certain Creative Commons licenses), so the Zune implements at least half the idea.

Re:Zune (1)

nightgeometry (661444) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853963)

I used to think this, but apparently they do not DRM the received track (in the normal sense), they just delete everything after three plays or days (or whatever it is).

Which seemed a pretty sneaky way round drm'ing something that they are not allowed to. But... if they let you 'unpirate' something, then what they do is more arguably drm'ing, meaning potential rights issues (maybe).

Which is kinda interesting after a few shots of whisly.

M$-Ballmer Language (1, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853881)

did you even read the article title?

There's hardly anything new about protection money. The dialog to unPirate goes like this:

"Hey, that's a nice looking music collection you got there. It'd be a shame if anything bad happened to it. Pay me and you are legit."

It will be a miracle if the RIAA sees a penny of it, and the artist slice will be even smaller, of course, so this hardly unpirates anything.

To use Ballmer language, they got a patent on "squirting" into "the social". It's just as dishonest as it sounds.

Re:Zune (2, Informative)

ilovegeorgebush (923173) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853599)

You are correct, they implemented it with the Zune, but this article refers to Microsoft's success at patenting the technology behind it.

Did you read the article?...

Re:Zune (1)

Pc_Madness (984705) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854391)

TCPA ftl. :(

Microsoft says: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19853551)

GIMME MONEY!!!

A giant leap (2, Insightful)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853555)

The next big step in DRM is a giant boot in the ass. Thanks bill.

Only device-to-device? (4, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853569)

From what I'm reading, it looks like this only applies to device-to-device transfer, a la the Zune's "squirt" feature.

Seriously, in the grand scheme of things, with people downloading tracks from p2p networks and ripping their own CDs, is this going to make an impact whatsoever?

I think not. It sounds like yet another goofy scheme to "enable" (the RIAA's word that roughly translates to "disable" in English) what consumers can do with their players.

Re:Only device-to-device? (1)

BewireNomali (618969) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853625)

i can imagine that the future of music delivery is a perpetually untethered device. one of the interesting things about the iphone is that - AFAIK - you still need to synch/dock in order to load music - you're still tied to the desktop.

the telcos are positioned to sell music - but the devices/phones are not ideal. form factors and battery life are prime issues - along with telco lock-in that prevents getting the best deal/price.

this is one of those things that doesn't seem like an issue now but will be - when devices will not need to be synched in order to acquire and/or expand your music library.

I agree and... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19853889)

I am very glad that Microsoft patented this bad idea. Hopefully the existence if the patent will discourage everyone else from implementing or using it.

Of course, I also think that this idea doesn't even remotely qualify as an invention, and the notion that a business process like this one can be patented is quite absurd. I would like to see the patent invalidated on those grounds...however...given that this is unlikely to happen any time soon, I can take some small consolation in the hope that the patent will continue to do what patents do best: discourage implementation.

The perfect excuse (2, Insightful)

DrYak (748999) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853975)

We've been exchanging tunes, photos video clips and whatever over bluetooth between phones and PDAs in Europe, *for AGES*.

Microsoft's patent is now the perfect excuse :
- No sorry, there can't be any piracy prevention over bluetooth for devices from manufacturer X, because manufacturer X sells also their products in the USA, and Microsoft has a monopoly on such anti-piracy implements. Making an anticopy measures on top of bluetooth would cut them from that (lucrative) market because of patent infringement.

Or whenever a vendor tries anyway to "Zune"-ize our bluetooth device in Europe, just reflash it with the American MS-patent-complying firmware.

Limited Impact. Predictable. (4, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853983)

Seriously, in the grand scheme of things, with people downloading tracks from p2p networks and ripping their own CDs, is this going to make an impact whatsoever?

The impact of this scheme is limited by poor sales of the Zune. While Apple was able to sell half a million iPhones on it's first weekend, Zune missed it's million player target last month. [slashdot.org] People don't want a music player that "squirts" expiring music. Part of the reason is because they don't really care to share their music like the MAFIAA thinks they do. The other part of poor Zune sales is that people want to own, not rent, the music they have. They continue to purchase and rip CDs and that is still the major source of people's music collections despite abundant, legal and free music on line. Because of this, they can put up with iPod's lame sharing capability but think very dimly of Zune's ability to disappear music.

M$ can keep their crappy patent - no one is going to buy a device that implements it.

Never Willingly. (5, Insightful)

Ayanami Rei (621112) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853585)

I would never willingly purchase a device with such a misfeature. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Way to shoot yourselves in the foot, Microsoft and Apple.

Never Willingly-vote with YOUR $$$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19853699)

"I would never willingly purchase a device with such a misfeature. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Way to shoot yourselves in the foot, Microsoft and Apple."

Pfft! Do you really think you'll be missed? If you all can't even get up the courage to influence the political process? What makes you think you'll influence the economic one?

Re:Never Willingly. (1, Insightful)

RingDev (879105) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853713)

I don't know... I don't think it's that bad of an idea.

I mean, last week I went to a party. A friend of a friend put a comp CD in and it was some good tunes. Standing in the shade of gray area, I could claim fair use and ask him for a copy of his CD. Or, I could go out and buy 9 CDs to get all of the singles/albums, or I could go to iTunes and buy the 9 songs.

None of these options have an immediate option for me to acquire a copy of the must. With the first option, I have to count on a guy who has likely drank too much to remember to burn a CD for me, who he will likely never see again in his life, so he will have to give the CD to a friend of his who might know that he is suposed to give it to me.

The second and third options both require me to either memorize or write down all of the content of the CD... not to likely while drinking...

The second option also requires me to track down all of the CDs either online or at local stores.

The third option requires me to dedicate my bandwidth to downloading lossy copies from iTunes.

In short, those options all suck. He has the music there, if we have similar playing devices, when not let me cherry pick a few songs off his immediately, then 3 days later when I'm syncing ask if I want to buy them? I get the music legally, after a few days free use, the IP holder gets their due, and even my buddy gets a nickle for pimping a few songs out. Everything sounds reasonable to me. Only thing I don't like about the situation is that some RIAA affiliate is likely getting a bigger percent than the original author. So long as it doesn't block the transfer of non-licensed songs, I've got no objection to adding functionality.

-Rick

Re:Never Willingly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19853851)

So long as it doesn't block the transfer of non-licensed songs,
and you are asking that from the company that made Vista. They are gonna err on the side of caution. Also, most likely the tracks on your friend's friend's CD would be unlicensed since they are cherry picked from a whole bunch of CDs.

Re:Never Willingly. (1)

Floritard (1058660) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853869)

Then again, if you're as drunk as you imply, maybe that music wasn't all the hot to begin with. I'll dance to anything shitfaced.

Re:Never Willingly. (3, Insightful)

ratboy666 (104074) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853905)

But, such a scheme CANNOT determine if the amount has ALREADY been paid.

If a levy is imposed on flash players (and it is, here), *and* the flash player FURTHER imposes payment... that would be paying twice for material.

Another example. If someone downloads from "iTunes" here, and burns onto CD, they effectively pay for the music TWICE (or possibly THREE times):

1 - the levy paid on flash (possibly Apple players are exempt?)

2 - payment to iTunes

3 - levy paid on CD

Re:Never Willingly. (4, Insightful)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854397)


Just like magazines in the doctors office.

They pay for a subscription, I pay to read it. Next patient/customer pays to read the same copy.

Books shared amongst neighbors or friends also do not continue to pay the revenue stream for the publishers.

I wonder if the publishing crowd would raise their minions of lawyers if PDFs of books were shared among readers just as easily as MP3s.

This DRM is never going to work. It's like the war on drugs and the problem isn't the so called `piracy`, it's the convenience of the format.
If there were an open source DRM format that registers the owner's data within the file, then maybe, but all the players want a cut and they want it to be their format and no one is going to use something that leaves breadcrumbs.

The RIAA realizes that the reaper is sharpening his blade for them. They are not the distribution powerhouse anymore and they have wronged too many artists that do fine without them (e.g., Prince).
The RIAA is of the mindset that if a performer is playing his guitar at a crowded corner in a busy street, everyone who hears his music should drop a coin in his hat.
If I'm entertained, I'd 'buy that for a dollar.' If I'm not, I'd pass on and forget the background noise.

Re:Never Willingly. (4, Insightful)

superbus1929 (1069292) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854445)

And let's not forget what happened when Prince said he'd give away his new CD in The Mail on Sunday on July 24! [guardian.co.uk]

"It would be an insult to all those record stores who have supported Prince throughout his career. It would be yet another example of the damaging covermount culture which is destroying any perception of value around recorded music. The Artist Formerly Known as Prince should know that with behaviour like this he will soon be the Artist Formerly Available in Record Stores. And I say that to all the other artists who may be tempted to dally with the Mail on Sunday."

They're not even subtle about this anymore. They're openly shaking down their own artists.

Re:Never Willingly. (4, Insightful)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854039)

I don't think it's that bad of an idea.

This idea by itself isn't a bad idea. However, when you combine it with the Music Industry wanting Internet Radio to play per listener, it suddenly points towards a very possible and unfriendly future. Pay per Play, on your personal collection. Sure the CDs you already own can't do this, but it's a very small step between: free for the first 3 plays then pay (BG's idea) and pay a small fee every 3 plays in perpetuity. I'm not trying to be all doom and gloom, but with CD sales seriously down, the music giants are getting desperate.

Non Free Music Sucks. (1)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854075)

He has the music there, if we have similar playing devices, when not let me cherry pick a few songs off his immediately, then 3 days later when I'm syncing ask if I want to buy them? I get the music legally, after a few days free use, the IP holder gets their due ...

Once you pay the Danegeld you never get rid of the Dane. M$'s rent a music schemes are not a one time payment, and they will try to push everyone into it. Do you think they will pay the RIAA or artists what's fair? Yeah, right.

An alternative you left out is that artists adopt other methods [magnatune.com] of promoting themselves [archive.org] that don't involve suing people. That way, you get to trade as much of your friend's collection as you want. The artist gets promoted and everyone wins, except the mafiaa.

Re:Never Willingly. (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854329)

I would never willingly purchase a device with such a misfeature. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Way to shoot yourselves in the foot, Microsoft and Apple.

Yea, they couldn't afford to lose *YOU* as a customer right.

Don't make the mistake of taking yourself for a perfect example of how most people would react. Right now iPod can't trade wirelessly music at all, and is the most popular player in the world. I'd argue that if the next iPod has crippled sharing ability, compared to this player's completely missing sharing ability, it's still more value to the average customer.

Re:Never Willingly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854459)

I would never willingly purchase a device with such a misfeature. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Way to shoot yourselves in the foot, Microsoft and Apple.
And Apple? How did Apple get dragged into this? TFS clearly stated that Microsoft's patented idea would take the concept (of sharing data) further. What you call misfeature is not part of Apple's patent. What's Apple's patent then?

One way it would work is similar to the way iTunes currently works, in that your device would find other Apple players on any wireless network and access their music. However, unlike iTunes, the portable devices would be able to send music files to each other (as opposed to streaming them), as well as making requests for music a la P2P services. The patent also indicates that users would be able to request a random selection of music from the other device.

Other aspects of the patent involve devices tagging tracks for later download, or downloading the requested content from a central server rather than from the other device -- pointing to the notion that iPhones and connected will have access to the iTunes store (it's a bit mystifying that the iPhone doesn't already offer this).


See anything about "unpirating" music? This patent covers what /.-ers often complain lacking on iPod and iPhone: The possibility of buying music wirelessly.

Re:Never Willingly. (1)

Thirdsin (1046626) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854487)

Problem is WE know this stuff and can make an informed decision not to purchase. Everyother teenybopper and vain sob on the block will buy the "brand" without a second thought.

I will not bite! (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853611)

...but Microsoft's patented idea would take the concept further, by allowing users to trade MP3s that may have come from file sharing networks to one another, expiring the song on the recipient's device after three plays, unless the user pays Microsoft a fee in order to continue to listen to the track,...

You know what...? I will not bite. I hope [our own] "DVD Jon" will come up with a way to defeat this nonsense.

Re:I will not bite! (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853683)

It's called "not using a Zune"

-DVD Jon

Sounds good.... (-1, Flamebait)

Otter (3800) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853613)

How often are you idiots complaining that you'd love to support the artist but you have to steal music and movies because [whatever inane reason]? Surely all you generous patrons of the arts will be jumping at the chance to belatedly pay!

Re:Sounds good.... (3, Funny)

glwtta (532858) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853729)

Yes! As a big fan of Microsoft's music, I can't wait to pay them for it.

Re:Sounds good.... (3, Informative)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853747)

So let me get this straight, you're suggesting that since a lot of us does not want to pay the mafiaa and likes, then we should pay the mafiaa and the likes belatedly? The problem is with the distribution cartel, not at the payment level!

Re:Sounds good.... (4, Insightful)

CoJeff (1015665) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853801)

There are plenty of FREE & LEGAL sites out there. A lot of bands support trading of live music. So yes I do support the artists. I go to as many shows when they come to town that I can afford. When was the last time you saw a concert??? When you buy a CD it goes to RIAA not the artist. If you want to support the artist go to a concert and buy some merch.

Re:Sounds good.... (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853831)

show me where this states the artist will see a dime of this money? thats right, your the idiot, not us.

Re:Sounds good.... (2, Interesting)

w.p.richardson (218394) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853849)

I've never made any bones about it, I won't pay for anything. So it's not like it matters to me one way or another. I have always had one logical consistent position on this - no money for anyone from me.

Re:Sounds good.... (1)

pla (258480) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853879)

Surely all you generous patrons of the arts will be jumping at the chance to belatedly pay!

I already paid for (almost) all of my music. And no way in hell will I pay again just to have it in my computer or my car or at work or on my phone or my portable player or anywhere. I bought the CD, I ripped the CD, and I will unapologetically play that rip in any way I so desire.

Now, the strawman you've made, while it may not apply yet, will come to matter more and more, as we see artists releasing content available from only a single DRM-using provider, such as iTunes[*] or the Zune. Then, the situation you describe may well come to pass, in that I will pirate the music before I'll accept a DRM-encumbered form of it.


* - I already have one such track, though not actually pirated in that I "own" it (spare me the licensing-vs-buying BS), as a free promotional download available only through iTMS to subscribers of the band's mailing list. But if not for the magic of Hymn nee PlayFair, I'd have no use for it, as I refuse to run iTunes and don't have an iPod.

Re:Sounds good.... (2, Interesting)

JM78 (1042206) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853913)

So M$ should somehow profit from this because...? Honestly, I didn't RTFA, but this sounds to me like they've patented profiting off illegal content someone else went to the effort to downloaded. And since when does paying the **AA amount to supporting the arts? I could be wrong here but it seems to me they're in the distribution business, not cultural charity.

I can see only one explanation here: You're a MAFIAA spy! Come on, admit it.

Re:Sounds good.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854053)

No he's not, or he wouldn't have the Pandora link in their sig. The same Pandora they are trying to kill. Hey! He's listening to music for free. Get 'em!

Re:Sounds good.... (1)

iceOlate (1094287) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853929)

Personally, I would only be in favor of something like this if ALL of the proceeds went directly to the artist. Obviously, that's not going to happen, as the RIAA will be taking the biggest cut, and then almost as bad, you got MicroSoft in the mix also getting a percentage. I'd much rather buy the music directly from the artist, even if that is for some reason a bit less convenient, than give more money to these assholes that don't deserve a cent.

Also, like someone else said, this sort of DRM should NOT be allowed to affect music from artists who are not even part of an RIAA governed label, as they have no right to collect money for or in any way regulate the music distributed by such artists.

Re:Sounds good.... (1)

AndyCR (1091663) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854059)

Really? Who stole anything? If I want music for free, there are far easier and more legal ways than to go into my local store, grab a CD, stick it under my coat and walk out.

Oh, you mean copyright infringement. Why didn't you say so?

Re:Sounds good.... (1)

superbus1929 (1069292) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854409)

There's a difference between "want to support the artists" and "don't want to support the enablers while the artists get screwed", which is essentially happening here.

Also: the fees would go to MICROSOFT, with a pittance going to the artists... of that, it's very highly likely that even a large portion of THAT pittance would end up going to the MAFIAA.

So in conclusion: artists are losing more legitimate sales by people fed up with this nonsense, while the people too stupid to avoid paying this horrible, horrible fee to listen to what could be their own legally obtained music wouldn't even be sending significant revenue to the artists.

Re:Sounds good.... (2, Interesting)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854483)

Come back when you actually understand what "whatever inane reason" actually is.

In my case, it arises from wanting to have my media (music, movies, TV shows, whatever) work on open source software, and without stupid restrictions. Note how people who actually buy DVDs are FORCED (yes, FORCED -- they tend to disable the fastforward/skip features) to watch anti-piracy bullshit, while the actual pirates that it's targeted at can either skip over or slice out the parts they don't like?

The other problem is one of paranoia. Simply put, it's partly the stupid restrictions that they've put there now, and partly the knowledge that they could put whatever the hell restrictions they want on it and you can't do anything about it -- unless you've already successfully pirated it, or ripped it using illegal tools (yes, it's ILLEGAL to rip a DVD), so you now actually have a copy that they can't do anything to, ever.

In any case, if I was going to buy music, I'd go buy it directly from the artist, or from a site which gives the artist a good chunk of the price -- more like 50%, instead of a couple pennies.

Re:Sounds good.... (1)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854525)

If I want to support an artist I'll drop a $5 bill into an envelope and mail it to them. It'd probably be a hundred times more than they'd get from the RIAA selling me a CD.

Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19853627)

Where can I get it? Can I please use my Genuine Advantage software to get it! Does any one has a torrent to the software?

So the next thing I'm doing... is: Buying a Zune! :) What a way to market their products! Amazing!

Re:Great! (1)

feedmetrolls (1108119) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853753)

Dear AC:

No, Windows Genuine Advantage does not cover it. If you want the software, you must have Windows Vista, unless you already have Vista in which case it will NOT work (whichever is less convenient). You may download the 30-minute trial for $900 and then purchase the software for uh...much, MUCH more.

In addition to Genuine Windows and a Zune, you will also need an XBox 360, Office 2007, Internet Explorer 7, MSN service, a Hotmail account, a second mortgage, and a multitouch coffee table to activate this software. We appreciate your interest in our service and uh...uh...ok, not we don't.

Sincerely,

Steve Ballmer

P.S. In order to reread this letter, please restart your computer and count backwards from three thousand.

P.P.S. CHAIR!!!

The Microsoft Tax (4, Insightful)

MenTaLguY (5483) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853635)

So, if I've got some Public Domain or CC-licensed songs, they're probably going to fall into the "may have come from file sharing sites" bin.

"Those are some nice Creative Commons media files you've got there. It'd be a shame if something happened to them..."

Re:The Microsoft Tax (3, Insightful)

khephera (1009359) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853669)

Files from legal, DRM-free download sites like http://www.emusic.com/ [emusic.com] will probably fall into this trap as well.

Re:The Microsoft Tax (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853763)

I think it just puts all non-DRM'd files in the bucket of "shame".

Re:The Microsoft Tax (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853813)

Yeah, if only the screwed-up "justice" system would allow us to hold Microsoft liable for the violation of CC licenses...

Re:The Microsoft Tax (1)

kebes (861706) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853863)

It's even more complicated than that. Most of the Creative Commons licenses explicitly forbid adding DRM to the files. (See FAQ here [creativecommons.org] .) So, adding DRM to CC files would be a license violation.

It's unclear who is actually doing the violating, though. If I transfer a file to you, and our devices conspire to add DRM to the file, who is at fault? Is it me? Is it you? (We should have known how the devices operate, and it is our responsibility from ever using them in conjunction with CC files?) Or is the device manufacturer liable? Normally I would say that the device manufacturer cannot be held accountable for copyright violations on the part of the users... however in this case if the user has no way to turn off the 'feature' then the device is not letting them comply with copyright. In effect, the device is enforcing copyright violations, by not allowing users to respect CC licenses, even if they wanted to.

Okay, the logic is a little contorted, but I think you get the point. Devices that mandatorily add DRM are incompatible with a great many legitimate uses, and in conflict with many distribution licenses.

Re:The Microsoft Tax (1)

MenTaLguY (5483) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853939)

As far as I can figure, the only legally sound thing (as users) is simply not to trade the media in the DRMed form. In practice they'll probably do so anyway.

If you wanted to put legal pressure on the manufacturer, I imagine you'd need to use some more indirect means than suing them for copyright violation, again because the user isn't being forced to use the manufacturer's devices.

Ob Bash Quote (5, Funny)

HungWeiLo (250320) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853649)

NES lol
NES I download something from Napster
NES And the same guy I downloaded it from starts downloading it from me when I'm done
NES I message him and say "What are you doing? I just got that from you"
NES "getting my song back fucker"

How will they tell the difference? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19853661)

How do they expect to distinguish between music that I have legally ripped from purchased CDs and music that has been downloaded from a p2p filesharing network illegally? Also, who gets paid if I decide to trade my own material?

I for one have no interest in using proprietary Microsoft encoding formats to bugger up my ripped files, nor do I have any interest in using a portable device that will only play said formats.

Re:How will they tell the difference? (2, Insightful)

Duhavid (677874) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853715)

They have an incentive not to care.

Re:How will they tell the difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19853909)

They make no difference because they know that the music that you have legally ripped from purchased CDs can be reripped each time you use up your allowed three plays.

Re:How will they tell the difference? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854133)

i play xbox with my brother sometimes... its very cool... my brother is 30 years old hes pretty smart... he has 45 iq its the same as heis shoe size.. pretu good considaring 100 is full.... nentendo is cool but wii is beter... i am masetr chief from halo... bcz when i played halo for the second time i knew what was going too happen befor eit happend... so im takeru... its pretty cooll... sonic is cool... i dont like tails though bcz hes sonics girlfrend... i want2 be sonics girlfrend.... sonic is so fast and handsome its increddibnle... sometimes... together... my mom and dad are brother and sister... its prety cool i gess... i herd its prety normal in america.... they love eachother like a father and daugher... theyr so cute together... together... sometimes... xbox... my brother is in wheel chair... but hes cool because hes smart... yea... the boy in the basements said he isnt smart and he say bad thing about my dad... but its no mater... he is chained up... in basement... together... xbox... yea... maybe... xbox is pretty cool bcz they its like games... together... sometimes... i hear screaming from basement... dosnt mater... the boy there is happey.... yea...

No big deal (3, Funny)

qweqwe321 (1097441) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853665)

They already tried a more primitive version of this with the Zune, and we all know how well THAT one worked out.

Um no Holden McNeil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19853675)

If you can hear it, it can be ripped. They will never learn. Also, music was intended to be free and
heard by the masses. Look at artists who paint and sculpt. They don't do it to get paid. So quit
calling musicians artists. If they were artists, they wouldn't be doing it for the money. Give me a break.
Making music is not necessarily that hard...breaking up concrete, working a garbage truck, doing brain
surgery is hard work.

My computer is my mom. (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853677)

So now our computers are going to delete files we got from P2P networks for us. So much for using my own system with it spying on me.

Bill Gates new nickname:
The Man with the Palladium Gun.

So if the "services" offered are illegal (1)

Lewrker (749844) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853695)

like...say... prostitution, then the person benefitting from it would be the...pimp! Microsoft Pimp 2007!
Wow...just wow.

Awesome (1)

sveard (1076275) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853721)

trade MP3s that may have come from file sharing networks to one another [...] with a percentage going to the person who provided the song
That's great! Earn money for providing songs on file sharing networks!

I had hoped that Microsoft would one day support P2P.

Re:Awesome (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853781)

You're dealing with RIAA blockheads- your site will likely still be illegal unless the last of free-from-DRM devices has gone off the 'net.

i was thinking on something more .. free (1)

Z80a (971949) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853725)

basically the idea is a program that scans the MP3 or rom or pirate CD/DVD,the value of it,and then sends the info to a site,that gives you a way to pay for the file and when payed,gives you a eletronic license that have a unique ID and etc basically a software that allows you to download something from a illegal place,legalize it,and only pay for the license,instead of paying for the media/taxes and etc

blacks ftw (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19853737)

we have your women. soon we will have the white house.

it's our time now.

blacks ftfw.

What about live free legal music. (4, Insightful)

CoJeff (1015665) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853755)

I see alot about sharing music and if the person who go the shared file will be able to buy it. However I'm a huge live music fan and download stuff all the time. I'd say over 85% of what I have can't be bought in a a store or online store. So why should it be limited to 3 plays/3 days???

Soon we will be paying to hear our own recording (3, Interesting)

John Sokol (109591) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853771)

I have seen these Automatic Identification of MP3 files mess up often.
Even in scenarios where I record some of my own voice,just me just speaking into a mic and recording it, these systems have misidentified it as some pop song and shows an album cover of this mistakenly identified song.

So it's just a matter of time before they will try to force me to pay to listen to these recording that I make myself when ever this wonderful scheme messes up.

Only a truly evil mind could invent such a scheme.

Re:Soon we will be paying to hear our own recordin (3, Funny)

sveard (1076275) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853785)

Or maybe your voice resembles that of Michael Jackson?!

Re:Soon we will be paying to hear our own recordin (4, Informative)

Stormx2 (1003260) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853931)

Misidentification isn't the only issue. As discussed before, stuff like this breaks a bunch of licenses (e.g. from bands who license stuff under creative commons sa)

Moral of the story.... (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853777)

Make sure you pirate MP3s.

Re:Moral of the story.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19853997)

And the OS while you're at it...

Why are the users paying microsoft for access? (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853783)

isn't this patent supposed to be sold to the record industry that they can profit from it?

Sounds like extortion to me, that MS is putting a tax on users for property that they do not own.... sort like what they are doing with claims they own IP in linux and offering protection for a price.

MS the new techno mob?

Re:Why are the users paying microsoft for access? (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853845)

Perhaps this hows the essence of MS mentality.... profit off the works of others.

Proof they invent nothing new.

Microsoft sure knows what consumers want! (1)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853789)

What great insight... they know if you give the customer what they want, they'll come back and buy more. Customers have been begging them, please, put DRM on our music collection that we already purchased and was in DRM'd. I know that DRM is actually DCE and that it enables me more better!

That's why Vista and The Zune are such great hits. The customer was begging for them.

Damn Media player (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853815)

Media Player already asks me if I want to "purchase" the mp3 Im playing... even when it came from my own cds.

And you use Media Player, because ....? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19853923)

Media Player already asks me if I want to "purchase" the mp3 Im playing... even when it came from my own cds.

Maybe you didn't get the memo, but you are allowed to stop hitting yourself in the head when it hurts.

Re:And you use Media Player, because ....? (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853951)

I see where your going... "Stop using media player". But the fact remains, media player will launch in a fraction of a second, on a locked down no-permission-to-wipe-your-ass install of XP, where something like winamp actually takes MINUTES to launch when you can't write to its directory.

Why would they need a patent? (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853821)

They've been corrupting users' files for 20 years now, and nobody's bothered trying to steal that idea in that time.

They are such Retards. (1)

mombodog (920359) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853837)

They should have embraced this Idea way back when Napster was first started, don't fight it, but instead, "Make it Pay" Boy are they slow on the uptake. If the Music industry dies as we know it, it will be due to their own greed and stupidity. It is a cartel anyway, no big loss if it does.

Percentage? What percentage? (1)

UberDragon (952311) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853839)

Once again corporate music america trying to make it harder for the little guys to do it alone. Since they can't keep up with technology and protecting their own investments the next best thing is to make it so the little guys music won't play without selling it to a label and ... Microsoft. Why can't they read the same statistics I see that seem to indicate "pirated" music may actually increase music sales as listeners are often using the "try before you buy" method these days. And rightfully so if you ask me.

Sounds Illegal (1)

AnyThingButWindows (939158) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853915)

Sounds illegal since we have this thing called fair use granted by the Supreme court. Not to mention that no one in their right mind would buy suck a broken product that only allowed a song to be played 3 times before you have to send off an extortion fee to a fortune 500 company, who made it's profits breaking anti-trust laws, and worming it's way through the Unconstitutional WTO.

Off topic Rant: HA indeed. Speaking of the WTO. The WTO has no authority over anyone in the states, and is not a part of the federal system either. The WTO is a self made wanna-be authority that is unconstitutional, therefore holds no authority over U.S. citizens. If an authority is not a part of the thee branches of government, or state. Therefore it holds no power.

Back to the point. How would such a device determine what song is 'copyrighted' and which one isn't? It sounds like a device that must have a dependence on some sort of hash, or tag, within the audio file itself. It must, otherwise, it couldn't tell what was copyrighted, and what isn't. It should be a matter of ripping the tag from the file before it enters the player at some point. How would it determine if it came from another country? If I download a song from Germany that is copyrighted, then there is no constitutional legal authority that tells me that I must pay some guy on the other side of the globe some fee in God only what knows type of money I don't use. I don't trade with Germany, so I don't have to comply with their laws, much less care.

oh wait patent MP3 MLMs (1)

micromuncher (171881) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853917)

why not have a pyramid of profit up the distribution chain...

Re:oh wait patent MP3 MLMs (1)

morlock_man (884105) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854469)

That's actually what this is... the consumers earn money by trading music.

It was taken from another distribution company MS closed out through software updates to windows media player.

www.weedshare.com

spam? (1)

cstdenis (1118589) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853943)

with a percentage going to the person who provided the song
How long 'till we start getting music spammed over bluetooth in the hope we will buy it and the spammer will get their cut. I could see it be a significant problem if its poorly implemented.

Hold on a minute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19853949)

This is a patent on a method of licensing content distributed without authorization of the copyright holder, with a percentage of the license fee going to the person who did the unauthorized distribution in the first place?!? And when the distributors show up to claim their reward, they really won't get hit with an RIAA lawsuit for distributing the content in the first place?!? The mind boggles...


Queue the obligatory "It's a trap!" quotes!

So many things wrong with this. (2, Insightful)

gillbates (106458) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853953)

unless the user pays Microsoft a fee in order to continue to listen to the track, with a percentage going to the person who provided the song.

So, if I read this right, Microsoft has patented making money from copyright infringement of someone else's work.

  • If I was the artist, I wouldn't be happy to settle for a percentage of the sale. As the owner of a copyrighted work, I'm entitled to the full sale price regardless of what Microsoft and others may believe.
  • As a user, I'd be really angry if this "technology" decided that songs for which I had paid, or worse, recorded myself (as in, me being the artist) were invalid after 3 plays.
  • I'm pretty sure that any implementation of the patented invention would give rise to contributory infringement claims against the maker. The whole idea behind this is to encourage others to commit copyright infringement in order to benefit the patent holder, not the artist.

Re:So many things wrong with this. (1)

cstdenis (1118589) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854045)

If I was the artist, I wouldn't be happy to settle for a percentage of the sale. As the owner of a copyrighted work, I'm entitled to the full sale price regardless of what Microsoft and others may believe.
No you aren't. You think the artists now get all the money from a CD sale? At best they get a tiny % and the rest goes to the RIAA. Even the riaa doesn't get the whole sale price, the store selling it gets their chunk too. MS is just acting as a middle man and taking their cut as any would -- and they happen to be offering a chunk to the person who referred the sale.

Re:So many things wrong with this. (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854437)

Microsoft has patented making money from copyright infringement of someone else's work

Hey, it's Microsoft. They make money from other peoples' ideas. That's what they've always done.

Article title (1)

Aggrav8d (683620) | more than 7 years ago | (#19853967)

Makes me think of the "phone buster buster".

See the diagram in the --MS-- patent? (1)

jpetts (208163) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854009)

Ha! If that's not an iPod Nano, I don't know what it is.

Why not a Zune?

Sounds Like What Imeem.Com Has been doing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854035)

User uploads music to share with friends, imeem [imeem.com] checks to see what label it's on and then pays the label every time it's listened to. Doesn't matter if you download it or rip it, imeem users Snocap to figure out what the music sounds like.
They just signed a deal with Warner brothers too, who were suing them until a couple of days ago.

Music Players Spying On You? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854049)

Simple solution - don't use Microsoft hardware. Problem solved. Even if Apple roll over and follow Microsoft, simply use the Chinese knock off player that comes out with the same features that doesn't have this "feature".

People need to vote with their wallets. They certainly have with Vista ;)

Will this be relevant in a DRM-free world? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19854115)

Last100 says: [last100.com]

Paying users for sharing tracks that subsequently lead to a purchase is an interesting concept, which at least shows some innovation in terms of how to convert piracy into legitimate music sales. However, with the music industry moving away from DRM and towards universal formats, the idea may have already expired before it ever hits market.

Weed does this / slashback link (1)

ejoe_mac (560743) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854277)

Yea, gotta work on the title, but Sir Mix-a-lot has some tracks out under a license like this:

http://slashdot.org/articles/04/01/10/2042228.shtm l?tid=126&tid=141&tid=187&tid=188 [slashdot.org]

Looks like the service shut down though:

http://weedshare.com/ [weedshare.com]

Re:Weed does this / slashback link (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854357)

It's hip hop - what's that got to do with music?

That's just a big black bloke talking over a repetitive riff he's stolen from some proper music.

Prior art: speakers connected to mp3 player (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854407)

'Nuff said.

more incorrect uses of "song" and "music" (1)

brre (596949) | more than 7 years ago | (#19854555)

The song doesn't expire in three days. You mean "recording". The song remains. You're free to sing it whenever you like. Your right to play a particular recording expires.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>