Zune’s Big Innovation: Viral DRM
Posted by Kirk Biglione in DRM, Microsoft, Music, Zune on Sep 15, 2006
Now that Microsoft has released some hard facts about Zune we can finally begin to sort out how much of an impact the product might have on the digital music market. For weeks we’ve been hearing rumors about how Zune’s wireless capabilities will be used to enable new types of music sharing and discovery. It’s the one feature that could potentially set Zune apart from the iPod.
Unfortunately Zune’s wireless music sharing is turning out to be one of those features that seemed better when it was just a rumor. While Zune users will be able share music with friends, there’s a catch (isn’t there always). As Jim noted earlier, recipients of shared songs will only be able to listen to them three times or for three days, whichever comes first. It sort of sounds like a really bad tire warranty.
Zune accomplishes this amazingly stupid feat by wrapping shared music in a proprietary layer of DRM, regardless of what format the original content may be in. If Microsoft’s claims are to be believed, this on-the-fly DRM will be seamless and automatic – which must be some kind of first for Microsoft.
What Microsoft has created is a new form of viral DRM. Zune will intentionally infect your music with the DRM virus before passing it along to one of your friends. After three listens the poor song dies a horrible DRM enabled death. Talk about innovation.
Microsoft will undoubtedly claim this limitation is designed to support artists and prevent piracy. There’s just one problem. Not all artists want their music protected by DRM. Furthermore, not all artists benefit from having their music protected by DRM.
While it may come as a surprise to Microsoft and the major labels, independent musicians frequently promote their music by posting unencrypted mp3 files on their websites in hopes of finding an audience. If Zune is really all about community, as Microsoft claims it is, then it would allow music to spread virally, instead of DRM.
Meanwhile, if you’re a musician who is more concerned with building your audience than you are with restricting access to your creative works, you might consider adopting an appropriate Creative Commons license. Based on the item below it appears that Zune’s viral approach to DRM is in violation of all of Creative Commons licenses. It’ll be interesting to see how long it takes before someone actually challenges Microsoft on this.
What happens if someone tries to protect a CC-licensed work with digital rights management (DRM) tools?
If a person uses DRM tools to restrict any of the rights granted in the license, that person violates the license. All of our licenses prohibit licensees from “distributing the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.”
Creative Commons FAQ
Update: Since most of you probably won’t be wading through the comments below I’ll address an issue that should have been included in the original article above. It’s been asked repeatedly how I know that Zune will wrap non-DRM’d songs in a layer of DRM. Confirmation of this actually came from Microsoft’s own Zune Insider, Cesar Menendez.
This is from his blog in response to reader questions about Zune functionality.
I made a song. I own it. How come, when I wirelessly send it to a girl I want to impress, the song has 3 days/3 plays? Good question. There currently isn’t a way to sniff out what you are sending, so we wrap it all up in DRM. We can’t tell if you are sending a song from a known band or your own home recording so we default to the safety of encoding. And besides, she’ll come see you three days later. . .
Update 2: Zune Insider Cesar Menendez has contact me with clarification about Zune’s file sharing limitations. See my latest post for more details.
Kassia, if everything were easily accessible and freely available, the inherent value would be *increased*. The captured revenue might be reduced (or it might not), but that’s a different question. The inherent value would be bigger.
On another topic, I wonder if Zune qualifies as a Circumvention Device? After all, it reads (or should read) the CC license information in the MP3 files and copies those files in contravention of that CC license?
η
I should point out that while it’s true that a musician who distributes his or her work under a CC license could easily sue Microsoft for violating the terms of the license, and even if he/she can actually prove an actual violation of the license, there’s still the question of damages, and proving damages will be very, very difficult.
Frankenstein, in the US at least there’s the concept of statutory damages – the (in)famous $150,000 per song.
No need to prove actual damages.
η
As an indepependent artist, I’m stating right now, my music is banned for use on Zune until the DRM wrapper can tell free and CC licences from “proper” copyright material.
Heh, can’t you just see an RIAA boardroom full of suits looking over the Zune, and wondering, “why can’t we put a coin slot on these things?” If they could make us pay for each and every time we listened to one of their “protected” songs, they would. I’m surprised they haven’t tried yet, honestly. Keep up the fight, you independent artists!
This ain’t no iPod killer. If anything, it’ll drive people back to them. As for me, I’ll stick with my years-old, tried-and-true iGP-100.
Stupid name, stupid features, designed by a company whose programmers only care for their coding quota and deadlines and not for whether their code will actually work or not.
Isn’t that enough to just forget about that “zune” outright and never think about it again?
And if you want to impress your girlfriend – just give her a compilation CD or a USB stick full of MP3s…
Don’t buy that thing and you will never have to worry about it’s DRMs.
Looks like the Sony MP3 player’s, A-Trac fiasco all over again…taking good hardware and ruining it with awful, crippling firmware. I cannot imagine anyone would be interested in this….sharing songs but only good for three days or three plays? This takes an interesting, although somewhat gimmicky feature and makes it absolutely worthless.
Microsoft needs to be careful here, or the Zune will be doa. It makes you wonder, did Microsoft feel legally obligated to wrap all user songs with DRM?
If Microsoft’s claims are to be believed, this on-the-fly DRM will be seamless and automatic – which must be some kind of first for Microsoft.
I’m not some overzealous supporter of Microsoft at all, but as someone who works with computers every day, I’m so completely annoyed by the continued trendiness of bashing MS. Sure there are reasons to do so, but the above comment is asinine! Ever hear of plug-n-play? Perfect by no means, but if you’re used to it and ever try the switch to another platform that doesn’t have it, you’re in for a rude awakening. Knee-jerk comments like this one erode any credibility your argument might otherwise have, and this article is rife with them.
Bash MS if you want to, but do so in an inelligent, discriminating fashion if you want people to take you seriously. This article comes across as an axe-wielding proponent of one side of a black and white argument…which DRM isn’t (at least not if you use some common sense).
Bendite – I run my own business. It’s a fairly small operation, so I also provide my own tech support. As a result I’ve supported the Windows platform and Microsoft products for over ten years. There’s a reason why we’ve slowly migrated all of our systems to Mac-OSX over the past year or so. Things work better. I spend less time on support and upgrades and more time actually doing what I’m supposed to be doing.
Plug-n-play is not seamless. Windows repair disks rarely work. Security patches frequently break functional systems. XP is still all too prone to the dreaded blue screen (usually when it decides it doesn’t like one of those plug-and-play devices). It’s a nightmare. Windows is better than it used to be, true – but it’s still not good enough.
What I’m trying to say is that my original comments hardly qualify as knee-jerk bashing.
As for DRM, you’re right. It isn’t a black and white argument. Unfortunately most of the DRM we see is intended to eliminate the fair use rights that consumers have become accustomed to over the years. It frequently exposes consumers to unnecessary risks (remember the Sony root-kits?), and it’s almost always used as a tool to lock consumers into a proprietary system (Apple Fair Play and now Zune DRM).
You don’t find the viral nature of the Zune DRM to be more than a little heavy handed? Are you a musician? Do you know any musicians? If you do, then you should ask them how they’d feel about Microsoft determining the terms-of-use for their recordings.
Kirk, I agree that P-n-P isn’t “perfect”, but as something taken for granted in most cases, it is extremely functional and does in fact work seamlessly 95% of the time…at least in my personal expreience over the past 12 years. Perfect, no, but really what is? Mac? Linux? I don’t think either of us would like to go down that road…
Like I said, my intention wasn’t to come off as pro-MS, just to point out that while there are problems that MS needs to address with Zune, using that topic as a platform for general MS bashing dilutes the credibility of your article as a whole. Ok, that aside…
Regarding Zune’s DRM ~ I am not a musician, yes I have musician friends. How would they feel about Microsoft determining the terms-of-use for their recordings? Probably not too good (I wouldn’t either). But how would they feel about Zune enabling the population at large to distribute their music to anyone else with a Zune player, in a completely unrestrained manor? Probably not too good. Anyone that thinks that Microsoft could get away with (even if they wanted to) wireless device-to-device sharing of media without *some kind* of limitations in place is kidding themselves. We’ve seen countless lawsuits on this topic recent years, it’s a wholy unrealistic ideal given the current state of copyright law.
Let’s look at this from a different angle – I own an iPod. If it had the abilty to share media with my friends with iPods, wirelessly, in the same 3 listen/3 day restriction fashion, would I use it? Hell yeah I would! Would I wish there wasn’t that restriction? Of course. But that doesn’t mean that I’d turn around and attack Apple, calling the feature an “amazingly stupid feat”. In fact, I think it’s a decent compromise. Honestly, I wish my iPod had that feature.
Finally, you’re absolutely right, not all artists want DRM on their music, and they distribute it freely. In that case, anyone who wants it can get w/o DRM, right? If I share a file with my Zune buddy from a band who supports free distribution of their music, then great! If my buddy likes it he can go download it from free from the ‘Net himself. So how does the initial sharing of their work harm the artists in question?
Thanks for the response by the way.
Bendite, I am a musician with many songs online under a Creative Commons license. Part of the reason for that is the fact DRM is prohibited under such licensing. This couldn’t be simpler. To anyone who thinks this sounds like an argument from a 12-year-old, the CC licenses address the DRM issue in terms simple enough for someone half that age to understand: *NO* DRM. For anyone who says that it’s the *user* who’s breaking the CC license, Microsoft made it this way in structure and spirit through their design. I don’t see that as an accident, nor do I see it as a sign of goodwill toward the musicians who made this licensing choice.
One thing to consider in explaining Zunes seemingly arbitrary DRM rules is that Zune file transfers may be lossy.
If Zune is built on Windows Media, they would need a kludge to get around the fact that Windows Media DRM encrypts files to the device. Possibly, that kludge woiuld involve playing the fiole back and re-encrypting it on the fly for transfer. This would almost certainly be a lossy process.
I don’t know any of this for a fact, but it explains a lot.
Any thoughts on this?
John
beezer@weedshare.com
Laer, I understand fully. I think there will be enough fallout regarding CC license that MS will need to readdress how they’re doing things.
I’m curious though, and I’ll ask you directly to share your feelings and not to feel as though you need to speak for ALL artists who realease music under a CC license ~ how is it that you see Zune’s approach as a damaging one, in your case? No argument here, I’m purely curious.
Do people on this board really think the MS is being malicious in their use of DRM with the Zune? If so, I’d say it’s time for a reality check. MS is attempting to offer maximum features while limiting their liability. It’s a difficult problem, and no matter the solution, they’re not going to be able to please everybody. The idea behind media sharing with Zune is, in my opinion, quite sound. Their execution of that idea needs to be reexamined, and I think that it will be, particularly in regard to the CC license issue.
As a comparison, the iPod could NOT be easily adapted to do the same thing. Apple’s DRM (FairPlay) is added by the iTunes software in the user’s computer. This way, Apple’s servers aren’t bogged down with the encoding process. The music does NOT have any DRM when sent to the iPod. This is how you can have unlimited iPods with your songs on them. Just as with the servers, by not having DRM policing issues within the iPod, the iPod’s internal software is much simpler and faster. iTunes is the central control for DRM. This is why there will be no Apple DRM 3rd-party licensing, because it doesn’t exist on the music until after it enters your iTunes. Apple is quite smart to keep all of the DRM monitoring in one place, their own iTunes software, where your computer has the CPU power to do the necessary controlling of all of the music and attached devices/media. One traffic cop, one location, one set of rules; iTunes.
One traffic cop, one location, one set of rules; iTunes.
GM, you forgot “one bloated, slow, restrictive, controlling POS”.
OK Bendite, NOW who’s being a knee-jerk reactionary?
EvangelizeWithRespect, I’m not convinced you know what “knee-jerk” means, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that my stament regarding iTunes comes about as a result of two and a half years of use and frustration with that application. It is bloated. It is slow. It is restrictive. It is controlling.
I loathe iTunes, as do most of my friends with large music collections. I also loathe Quicktime, which is an iTunes requirement. As a (1) consumer and a (2) programmer, I will shout from the mountain tops that iTunes sucks. It’s my educated opinion, and it’s most certainly *not* a knee-jerk reaction.
Bendite – now you’re showing your side
See what happens when you get frustrated by technology? For the record, I’m not an iTunes fan either.
GM – I’m not sure you’re entirely correct. iTunes songs are encoded with DRM when they’re added to the iTunes store. The files you download are pre-encoded, and they’re transfered as-is to your iPod. Your iPod has the ability to decode FairPlay encoded songs. If you were correct, then two things would likely happen, 1) someone would have figured out a way to transfer iTunes songs to non-iTunes players, 2) it would be very easy to use software to pull the en-encoded songs off of any iPod.
Also, there IS a limit to the number of iPods you can load your iTunes songs on. I’m not sure what it is right now, but it’s part of Apple’s FairPlay DRM policy. The fact that you haven’t noticed this restriction would seem to indicate that Apple’s DRM policies are somewhat less obtrusive than some of the other DRM schemes floating around.
I’m no fan of DRM, but as I’ve said before I think Apple has come the closest to getting it right by crafting a DRM policy that allows for song burning, and support for multiple portable devices. They’ve at least made an effort to allow for fair use, even while they’ve eliminated the right of first sale.
I had a thought — this is probably kinda nuts. Follow along, won’t you?
(“People Using The Zune” shall be abbreviated as PUTZ® for simplicity. )
Let’s say that PUTZ#1 wirelessly shares the song ‘ABC.MP3′ with PUTZ#2. PUTZ#2 now has 3-days, 3-plays, right?. What happens if:
PUTZ#3 shares the SAME song with PUTZ#2?
or…
PUTZ#2 shares the song ‘back’ to PUTZ#1? (Or any other Putz.)
or…
PUTZ#1 re-names the original file to ABCd.MP3 and then shares it with PUTZ#2 AGAIN!?
I seriously doubt that MS has considered all the crazy stuff that PUTZes can come up with.
I’d like to hear read your thoughts.
P.S. to Bitcloud. “Many are even giving it away, like our band:”
Er… I went to the site. “Giving it away” is probably a good plan. And may I say it’s worth every penny. Has anyone told you that just because you *have* a Casio Keyboard with lots of sound effects, you really don’t have to use them ALL. I’m just thinkin’ maybe a little music in your ‘music’ would be nice? (Let’s use the black and white keys too, not just the brightly-colored ones with fancy-sounding names at the top, ‘kay?)
Samson – I think you might want to change that acronym. My understanding is that Putz is the name of the next Prism DuroSport media player, and I can tell you from experience that those people are litigation happy.
You can find more information here. They’re apparently doing wireless song transfers too, but they haven’t announced the details yet.
Kirk
Thanks very much for the link — incredible site. I had never heard of the Putz but after looking around the site, I think the worst product ever made by Prism DuroSport is better than the best product ever made by Microsoft. Heck, I’m ready to buy a Prism Home Media system tomorrow but I have a really bad back so I’ll need to wait ’til my boys are at least sixteen so they can help me carry it. Unfortunately they just turned three, so it’s gonna be a while yet.
All seriousness aside, it’s a brilliant site and I don’t know the whole back-story on ‘Medialoper’ & ‘Nero’ or what their relationship is, but I think both sites warrant frequent visits from now on.
Thanks again!
Regards,
Samson
Bendite, I’ll give you a two-part answer.
Part 1: Indie artists’ creating a buzz with free tracks is a time-tested strategy, proven once again with the success of sites like Myspace. This is especially true for the type of music I write and produce; it’s meant to be DJ-mixed/remixed/arranged/etc. The more people who hear it, and the more ways it’s remixed, the better for everyone involved. Win-win. Creative Commons licenses let me specify up front that such uses can happen with my blessing. Standard copyright doesn’t technically specify this, and DRM kills it altogether.
Part 2: Naturally, I own sole distribution rights to all my tracks along with owning their copyrights. Creative Commons licenses supply the language needed to make my distribution choices legally binding when I decide to allow or disallow certain conditions. Legally binding unless, apparently, you’re Microsoft. History shows that it’s easier to defend rights you have than to regain rights you’ve surrendered. In this case, MS clearly disregards my rights to dictate distribution conditions as the owner of these tracks! This type of callous disregard could set a scary precedent for indie-artists without the backing of some multimedia conglomerate for years to come. And these conglomerates will become less and less relevent within the music-distribution system as technology continues to develop and niche markets grow (which is currently happening). This will leave little protection for the growing number of indie musicians increasingly at the mercy of heavy-handed DRM systems like the one in Zune. Scary precedent indeed!
Microsoft should have just continued writing code and avoided getting into the music biz. I was much happier with MS before I understood what all the haters were talking about! Music is not code, and musicians are a totally different breed than your standard computer geeks. I really don’t think MS knows what their doing here…
DRM=No zune for me!
I quit buying CDs because of DRM. How is the music industry going to make any money when everyone else does?
Isn’t breaking one licence just as bad as another?
Wouldn’t that make microsoft guilty of exactly the same crime as a major software pirate?
RIAA Vs. Microsoft… That’s a legal battle I’d pay to see!
Many are focusing on what the artists want, or what the recording industry wants, or what Microsoft wants, but we seem to forget that there is a reason copyright privileges are granted in the first place. According to the Constitution, copyright exists to “promote
the Progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”.
Copyright is not an absolute in otherwords, but a temporary (i.e. limited time) privilege granted to promote the common good, although Hollywood and the RIAA would like us to believe that their rights are God-given and absolute. DRM in any form should not be
permitted legally, because it interferes with the rights of the consumer, does nothing to stop real criminals and is contrary to the common good. Although the industry and some artists may not see it, in the long term it is also contrary to their good.
This is just one more reason why DRM is evil and, in the case of Zune, won’t survive the first lawsuit.
Microsoft does not have an iPOD killer here — why on earth would anyone who has already invested $100s in music for an iPOD switch to something which at best is only marginally better, and have to rebuy all their music. This is just another technology dead
duck, like Betamax.
The only way any vendor will ever take on Apple is to completely do away with DRM on principle. In design, Zune is good enough to take on iPOD if it was DRM-free, but as is, it is a useless product. We don’t need a proliferation of DRM Towers of Babel — we need
common sense and respect for the consumer. Then, maybe, the music industry and music player manufacturers will both rebound in tandem.
just one more pat on my own back for switching to apple, and gradually eradicating everything-microsoft from my electronic life
well microsoft have been rather good to this point with making software modable devices, the zune player sounds like it could be great with a little hacking
What’s so stupid in all of this is that flash-based MP3 players, y’know the ones which can simply connect to your computer via USB and can have their files R/W as simple as through drag’n'drop via Windows Explorer, are overlooked.
I mean, what’s stopping the aforementioned girlfriend mentioned above from bringing her MP3 player along so that both of youse can hook both up to one computer and transfer files BETWEEN them?
Forget WiFi! How about a couple flash-based MP3 players, a USB hub and a computer? And, best of all, no DRM problems! Oh, and no additional software needs to be installed either.
Sneakernet lives! Long live the Sneakernet! Oh, and tell your girlfriend/boyfriend/SO to go with open MP3 players. DRM-free, baby! ;->
Pete, how about actually reading the things you reply to? It’s free, it only takes a frew braincell-seconds, and you don’t need a written permission by the RIAA (yet).
I can’t believe the primary concern here is whether MS is violating copyright laws by allowing the 3-for-3 method. What I’m more concerned about is another shitty proprietary music format that tries to restrict what I do with my music.
Up until iPod, the idea of putting restrictions on how music is shared and listened to, was unheard of. Only through genius marketing to idiots, has iPod managed to convince people that they NEED restricted music. Whereas, almost every other media player, lets you do whatever you want with your files.
A hardware manufacturer’s concern, should only be to release a product that WORKS. Let the rest of the world argue and complain over the legalities of the files themselves. Unless you people want to live in a world where burned CD’s shoot from your computer and shatter against the wall when they try to write a protected file.
So many sheep in this thread.
Hey Chad – This article focused on one concern of many. We’ve talked about a variety of other concerns regarding the Zune elsewhere on this site.
My general feeling is that DRM is a virus and it must be stopped.
Sorry to be so general with my comments – I only read the first 20 or so.
A Failure to Launch…
This Zune Player launch is almost stealth, and the marketing is shotgun at best. How many people picked up a Sunday paper and went through the circulars from Best Buy, Circut City etc?
I found the Zune Player present in only one of the ten advertisers properties. It appears that there might be a few problems not only with DRM stepping on the CCL, but in even getting the Zune player to the consumer and grabbing a share of the {Apple restrictive} iPod market.
The Mircosoft, ZuneMarketplace website seems to confuse more than it helps, at least according to the e-mails I’ve had to answer.
The ‘bigger games’ thing is essentially one big lie and will bear no fruit for years to come. Microsoft has no intentions of creating games using the HD DVD format either , meaning that they fully expect that through the life of the 360 that it will be capable of storing ‘next-gen’ graphics on a dual-layer dvd. Those games that happen to be extremely massive will fit comfortably on two dvds. Titles that are dually available for both consoles at the moment look roughly identical on both consoles, with occasionally PS3 or 360 pulling slightly ahead in the ‘looks’ department. You would think they would have wanted to show off their ‘bigger games’ in the beginning to win over support eh?
They had planned to do hardware emulation which should have made it 100% compatible but instead (and to save money I think) they went the software route, just like Microsoft did with the 360. And like with the 360, that’s why the PS3 has trouble playing some 200 PS2 titles.