Microsoft to nuke MSN Music DRM keys

[Modelworks]

Another reason that DRM is bad, bad bad.


http://arstechnica.com/news.ar...sn-music-drm-keys.html

Customers who have purchased music from Microsoft's now-defunct MSN Music store are now facing a decision they never anticipated making: commit to which computers (and OS) they want to authorize forever, or give up access to the music they paid for. Why? Because Microsoft has decided that it's done supporting the service and will be turning off the MSN Music license servers by the end of this summer.

MSN Entertainment and Video Services general manager Rob Bennett sent out an e-mail this afternoon to customers, advising them to make any and all authorizations or deauthorizations before August 31. "As of August 31, 2008, we will no longer be able to support the retrieval of license keys for the songs you purchased from MSN Music or the authorization of additional computers," reads the e-mail seen by Ars. "You will need to obtain a license key for each of your songs downloaded from MSN Music on any new computer, and you must do so before August 31, 2008. If you attempt to transfer your songs to additional computers after August 31, 2008, those songs will not successfully play."

This doesn't just apply to the five different computers that PlaysForSure allows users to authorize, it also applies to operating systems on the same machine (users need to reauthorize a machine after they upgrade from Windows XP to Windows Vista, for example). Once September rolls around, users are committed to whatever five machines they may have authorized?along with whatever OS they are running.

 

[Xavier434]

Most DRM is such a failure. Eventually, the lack of sales due to DRM will lead to either its destruction or its evolution. Either way, it will not remain anywhere close to being the way it is now.

 

[Slick5150]

Amazing to me that they don't just release a patch to remove the DRM completely. If they aren't willing to continue to offer the "service" they promised at the time of purchase, then it seems to me they should be obligated to make the service unnecessary rather than impossible.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Amazing to me that they don't just release a patch to remove the DRM completely. If they aren't willing to continue to offer the "service" they promised at the time of purchase, then it seems to me they should be obligated to make the service unnecessary rather than impossible.

Or refund them their money and just let the license expire.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Amazing to me that they don't just release a patch to remove the DRM completely. If they aren't willing to continue to offer the "service" they promised at the time of purchase, then it seems to me they should be obligated to make the service unnecessary rather than impossible.

It might be interesting to read their ToS, because it may or may not have a clause for just such a situation

 

[theprodigalrebel]

That sucks.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Amazing to me that they don't just release a patch to remove the DRM completely. If they aren't willing to continue to offer the "service" they promised at the time of purchase, then it seems to me they should be obligated to make the service unnecessary rather than impossible.

Or refund them their money and just let the license expire.

Both of these are better solutions than what's happening.

 

[PokerGuy]

This just illustrates the folly of DRM, and why nobody should ever fall for the trap of buying DRM'd stuff. Basically, by doing so you are removing the options on how to use what you purchase from your hands and giving it to someone else to restrict your activities as they choose.

I can see it now, DRM'd cars: "yes, you can buy this toyota, but you can only drive it as long as you stay on toyota approved roads, and use the vehicle in a way we approve of. Also, before you take the car for a drive, please submit your route to our DRM team for approval so they can unlock the vehicle engine key."

 

[mugs]

If that happened ot me I would feel no moral qualms about pirating the songs.

 

[Jeff7]

So if I understand that right, after August 31, those songs are effectively trapped on the device they're on at that time?
Sounds like Divx for music - you're only renting it. (If the RIAA could work out that kind of a racket, such that you could only rent music for a limited amount of time, their board of directors would probably have to clean a sticky mess out of their pants, following hours-long fits of ecstasy.)

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
So if I understand that right, after August 31, those songs are effectively trapped on the device they're on at that time?
Sounds like Divx for music - you're only renting it. (If the RIAA could work out that kind of a racket, such that you could only rent music for a limited amount of time, their board of directors would probably have to clean a sticky mess out of their pants, following hours-long fits of ecstasy.)

That's how the "unlimited download" services like Napster and Rhapsody work. The songs are timebombed to stop working after 30 days if the subscription is not renewed.

On my Sansa player I get warning on the screen that tells me that I only have "7 days remaining on my subscription, please connect your device and update your license".

I'm fine with it. I know that I'm renting and happy with the price for the services I receive.

 

[ElFenix]

and this is why i've never purchased DRM'ed music.

 

[KB]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
and this is why i've never purchased DRM'ed music.

Bingo! Those who bought into DRM get what they deserve.

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: Jeff7
So if I understand that right, after August 31, those songs are effectively trapped on the device they're on at that time?
Sounds like Divx for music - you're only renting it. (If the RIAA could work out that kind of a racket, such that you could only rent music for a limited amount of time, their board of directors would probably have to clean a sticky mess out of their pants, following hours-long fits of ecstasy.)

That's how the "unlimited download" services like Napster and Rhapsody work. The songs are timebombed to stop working after 30 days if the subscription is not renewed.

On my Sansa player I get warning on the screen that tells me that I only have "7 days remaining on my subscription, please connect your device and update your license".

I'm fine with it. I know that I'm renting and happy with the price for the services I receive.

yes i am happy with some aspects of the pay to rent of rhapsody.

for streaming to my pc it is very good, but the drm patches and stuff do make the software buggy. so that is a negative. but the library is quite ogod, the indexing and searching is great, playlisting, etc. it really is a good interface and i get to explore tons of music. i do wish rhapsody was more on point with electronic music but that is more the flaw of other things, not DRM.


the TO GO services are fair price-wise except you are forced with crappy windows media file formats which SUCK UP mp3 player battery life like 2-3x faster than mp3 since they are more compressed -

thus take up a lot more processing power and hard drive access while being played, killing battery life.

they need a more efficient file format that DRM can work with cause right now it kinda sucks.

 

[0roo0roo]

another case of drm pwning the paying customer.

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: KB

Originally posted by: ElFenix
and this is why i've never purchased DRM'ed music.

Bingo! Those who bought into DRM get what they deserve.

yes, everybody screwed by unethical corporations deserves what they get.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: KB

Originally posted by: ElFenix
and this is why i've never purchased DRM'ed music.

Bingo! Those who bought into DRM get what they deserve.

To say they deserved this is idiotic. :roll:

 

[MrWizzard]

Yea I read this the other day and was not very happy, I guess I am one of the loosers that bought a huge load of DRM music. Me trying to keep everything legal and this is my reward. GRRRR well thanks to el computer I can easily UN-DRM my music. Go quad core GO!

MSN music had their chance I played by their rules and they are FTL.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

The class action suit is undoubtedly being prepared at this very moment.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: KB

Originally posted by: ElFenix
and this is why i've never purchased DRM'ed music.

Bingo! Those who bought into DRM get what they deserve.

To say they deserved this is idiotic. :roll:

Ya, that is stupid. No one should be expected to have to take a ton of time to research the music they buy. Most consumers don't even know what DRM is. It's not like all of them spend time reading tech forums and geeky RSS feeds. Even if they are the cautious responsible type, most wouldn't even realize that there was anything to research. Instead, they just find out the hard way and that is not right.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: KB

Originally posted by: ElFenix
and this is why i've never purchased DRM'ed music.

Bingo! Those who bought into DRM get what they deserve.

yes, everybody screwed by unethical corporations deserves what they get.

No, correction, they didn't just get screwed, they willingly put themselves in a position where they would be screwed, it was just a matter of how. If you never buy DRM junk you won't get in these kinds of predicaments.

To say they deserved this is idiotic.

They do deserve it, they opted to purchase DRM'd music, thus encouraging companies to do this kind of stuff. Had they stayed away from the DRM'd files they would not have had a problem.

 

[jjones]

I would say this might be ripe for a class action suit. Wouldn't be surprised if MS was hit with one over this.

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: KB

Originally posted by: ElFenix
and this is why i've never purchased DRM'ed music.

Bingo! Those who bought into DRM get what they deserve.

yes, everybody screwed by unethical corporations deserves what they get.

No, correction, they didn't just get screwed, they willingly put themselves in a position where they would be screwed, it was just a matter of how. If you never buy DRM junk you won't get in these kinds of predicaments.

To say they deserved this is idiotic.

They do deserve it, they opted to purchase DRM'd music, thus encouraging companies to do this kind of stuff. Had they stayed away from the DRM'd files they would not have had a problem.

you are wrong. they did get screwed.

microsoft positions itself as a company with huge staying power - it is totally within reason to have expected this enterprise to have longevity, and if not this enterprise, microsoft itself as a company - and thus allowing people to keep ownership of their files if this business unit failed.

if you cant see this as unethical, and a company screwing consumers, you are the one misunderstanding the situation.

the funny thing is YOU are the one encouraging companies to use shady practices because even when a company is being clearly shady here - you insist on only putting hte blame on the individual.

you are part of the whole DRM problem. take a look in the mirror.

 

[judasmachine]

Wow, wait till they do this with art hanging in your house. You have to call and/or pay if you move, or simply decide it looks better on a different wall. Then when the gallery goes belly up, you have to give it back, or burn it.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: KB

Originally posted by: ElFenix
and this is why i've never purchased DRM'ed music.

Bingo! Those who bought into DRM get what they deserve.

yes, everybody screwed by unethical corporations deserves what they get.

No, correction, they didn't just get screwed, they willingly put themselves in a position where they would be screwed, it was just a matter of how. If you never buy DRM junk you won't get in these kinds of predicaments.

To say they deserved this is idiotic.

They do deserve it, they opted to purchase DRM'd music, thus encouraging companies to do this kind of stuff. Had they stayed away from the DRM'd files they would not have had a problem.

You are assuming these customers even know what DRM is let alone aware that it came with their music purchases. Again, most people do not even come close to being as knowledgeable about such things as those who frequently use the internet for reasons like those on ATOT. However, tons of people purchase and download music. People shouldn't have to worry about this kind of problem because the problem shouldn't even exist.