I would have to disagree with this idea of "MSN Music offering". One thing I was told from a friend of mine and that I've learned as a "used to be" programmer is that EVERYTHING CAN BE COPIED. Period. The 'bomb' that explodes when your time is up is software based protection (it may use methods of hardware detection that could lower the amount of piracy, but it is still software). It can and will be cracked, and will only end up as another portal to illegally copy music. ALL IT TAKES IS ONE PERSON TO FIND A WAY AROUND IT, AND HE CAN POST IT OR COPY IT ALL OVER THE INTERNET. As a musician and consumer, this can be very frustrating. We cannot prevent piracy, but providing another electronic means of getting music just provides us with more ways of stealing copywrighted material.

"providing another electronic means of getting music just provides us with more ways of stealing copywrighted material"

Oh cry for us, some people will "steal" music just like some people rob banks. I'm going to assume you are pro gun control as well, lets take away guns so only criminals have them. Lets also take away electronically distributed music so only pirates will have that too. How about finding a way to make us want to buy your music online, most of us are actually not pirates contrary to what you want to believe. I know I have been an ITunes member since the first day it was available, and obviously so have a lot of other people.

who the hell wants to "rent" music anyway.. this isnt even BUYING music.. but renting at the mercy of some crapy assed corp..thats so incredibly NOT happening for me.. I'd rather stop listening to music..

..so basically.. the conclusion is.. we need to make a weapon of tomatosauce destruction and blow Redmond+Fans to ketchup..

.. so will that be with macaroni or egg .. or both?

I hate to break the news to you but
1) DRM is NOT renting music.
and
2)DRM is used to enforce the terms that you should be abiding by when you buy a CD.

"DRM is used to enforce the terms that you should be abiding by when you buy a CD."

Are you saying that by listening to the music contained on the CD that you agree to some EULA? That's the most assanine thing I've heard in a LONG LONG TIME.

Damn fool.. first off I live in a country where copying for backup..etc.. is LEGAL..secondly.. TIMEBOMBED MUSIC is RENTING.. MS can whenever they want REVOKE your license.. and all the music you DOWNLOADED AND PAID for will nolonger work.. this isnt NEW..the new part here is timebobed for portables..ofcourse its renting music.. at the mercy of the licenseholder..

its lame as hell.. when I buy a CD.. it is MINE and all the CONTENTS is mine.. If i wanna copy it to my mp3 player.. use the cd as a frisbee or WIPE MY A*S with it.. that is MY RIGHT... Would you pay for a car that you were not allowed to remove from your garage or transport on roads without the aid of authorized personnel. The personall would be almost impossible to get a hold of and then crazy expensive on top.. so you'd need to spend 5 hours getting the right people to move ur car from where u were to where u wanted to go and all you were allowed to do was sit in the car in the garage with the door closed and listen to radio..

that is what DRM is pushing for.. u have to pay multiple times for the same product just to be allowed to use it in several locations.. to use a product that YOU own.. while keeping the price as high as ever.. Im gonna an***y introduce chilipepper to whoever suggests this is a GOOD idea!

"Are you saying that by listening to the music contained on the CD that you agree to some EULA?"

Nope. No EULA involved at all. Just simple copyright law and international treaty.

When you buy a CD in the US or any signatory country you are bound by law on what you can and can't do with any copyrighted material on it.

I read his statement as saying that DRM is used to prevent (or at least attempt to prevent) violation of those laws.
The "terms you should be abiding by" would be "copyright law".

At least if you live in any of the countries that have agreed by treaty to uphold mutual copyrights:
http://www.wipo.org/trea...cuments/pdf/e-berne.pdf

"Just simple copyright law and international treaty."

Please show me WHERE under Copyright law a copyright holder can restrict re-use of purchased music.

Note, I am not speaking of commercial use. I am simply speaking of purchased music by a private consumer.

But it's NOT stopping you from making copies of it.

It isn't illegal to make copies of music, it's part of the whole fair use thing, HOWEVER, it is illegal to distribute copies of that music.

USC Title 17 Section 106(1)
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106

"Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;"

"re-use", if I am understanding you usage of the term, would involve making copies of the copyrighted work in another location or on another device.

If you would like I can give you a detailed breakdown of sections 107 through 122 and show how none of them apply to the DRM question as applies in this article...but for now I'll just summarize by saying that they do not apply to customers and consumers of the MSN Music service as described in the article. Persons and organizations that fall under special consideration via S107-122 would normally excercise those rights directly with the publisher of the copyrighted works.

Please do.

"exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following"

Where does it say that copying and/or transferring to portable player is automatically unauthorized?

;-)

Yeah, old DRM sucks. But it's the only way to really regulate the spread of personal mp3s. If you're good at backing up your licenses, then you should have no problem with it. And since 'backup' is what you're doing anyway, that should be no biggie.

I have quite a few 'paid for' Mp3s and I don't have any issues. As a matter of fact, most of them use DRM to simply unlock completely - doesnt need a license afterwards.

If MS will use DRM like you say - to 'make people pay for what they own over and over' loosely quoted; then they really should just go to hell. However, that's not what they're reworking it for.

They're trying to make it subscription based like satellite tv and cable etc etc. They're trying to make it so that IF you get the music (RENT for 9.95 a month) and you don't pay for say, the next month, the music will not play - plain and simple.

Many music services out there use DRM in a fair way, some don't. I have an old mp3 I got that I can't play now because I lost the license on a failed hard drive that I forgot to recover the licence from; THAT is DRM gone bad. That company doesnt even exist anymore so, that's it for that mp3. I keep it to show my friends. I have others where all DRM did was unlock it for good.

In a perfect world, there'd be no need to use DRM. But just like piracy, there are people out there who will buy the mp3 and then let everyone have...yes, sharing is caring but come on...for every person that gets that mp3 and doesnt pay is the artist and everyone who worked on that song losing money. It's not fair.

We all have a right to backup....but abusing this 'sharing' thing is really not cool.

"Where does it say that copying and/or transferring to portable player is automatically unauthorized?"

Unless the copyright holder has EXPICITLY granted you the right to make copies, you are not authorized to do so.

The key phrase is "excusive rights".

I'm not sure I agree with that, and I believe there is a ton of case law supporting the argument that consumers do have the right to copy their music to portable players.

example:

http://www.stoel.com/res...ebusiness/ebiz_001.shtm

Your example case never says that consumers have a right to copy music to portable players. Just that portable players are not "prohibited digital audio recording devices".

"The specific issue in the case was whether the Rio is a prohibited digital audio recording device under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (the "Act"). The court held that it is not. "

Text of the court opinion can be found here:
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/9th/9856727.html

The court did not entertain the question of whether or not it was legal for end-users to copy music to their RIO devices, they solely evaluated whether or not the RIO device itself was illegal under the copyright act.

The quote everyone loves to pull out of context from the opinion is "The Act does not broadly prohibit
digital serial copying of copyright protected audio recordings."

What they leave out is the context: "II

[1] The initial question presented is whether the Rio falls
within the ambit of the Act. The Act does not broadly prohibit
digital serial copying of copyright protected audio recordings.
Instead, the Act places restrictions only upon a specific type
of recording device. Most relevant here, the Act provides that
"[n]o person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any
digital audio recording device . . . that does not conform to
the Serial Copy Management System ["SCMS"] [or] a system
that has the same functional characteristics." 17 U.S.C.
S 1002(a)(1), (2) (emphasis added)."

If you read this and the rest of the opinion you will see that the scope is limited to the liability of device manufacturers/importers/distributors. At no time does it ever address any questions relating to end-user actions.

Ahh but it does..

" In fact, the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with the Act's main purpose -- the facilitation of personal use. As the Senate Report explains, "[t]he purpose of[the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use." S. Rep. 102-294, at *86 (emphasis added). The Act does so through its home taping exemption, see 17 U.S.C. S 1008, which "protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings, " H.R. Rep. 102-873(I), at *59. The Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or "space-s***," those files that already reside on a user's hard drive. Cf. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 455 (1984) (holding that "time-s***ing" of copyrighted television shows with VCR's constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act, and thus is not an infringement). Such copying is paradigmatic non-commercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act."

- http://lw.bna.com/lw/19990706/9856727.htm

Good point. I had missed that part.

:-)

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with this concept.
The concept of having a subscription based music collection is extremely enticing when bundled with the possibility of getting ANY song available onto a mobile device. If 3/4 of you HAD to buy music; that is...did'nt "share" music, I think you wouldn't be so close minded as to this new service. Rhapsody is, ok....but it's limited to playing music on my PC or wherever there is a PC AND broadband connection. I have Rhapsody so I know.
Imagine a service that allowed you do download entire collections, whatever you want to your hearts desire (and your devices capabilities) and keep them for as long as you pay the 10 bucks or however much a month. What more could you ask for?
Limiting the content to WMA only however gives me pause. Another one of MS 'tactics' to 'unite' aka monopolize once again.
If only they'd use their ideas for good instead of evil.

I think you're remarkably shortsighted at best (sorry, but I will now explain why). Personally, I do buy music - quite a lot of it in fact, over the years (most recently the new Zero 7 just last weekend). I don't do P2P - in fact it's banned on my home network as a source of virii and malware. However, WHY should I pay money for a lossy format? The companies purveying such snake oil are LAUGHING at you if you do. They have cut their carrying and inventory costs, are charging you the same price as if you bought a CD at $1 a song and you're definitely NOT getting CD quality product. Furthermore, you're lining their pockets on THEIR terms if they can implement a subscription or limited use product - you don't get to keep what you paid for or use it in the way you see fit. Where I come from this is called a CON JOB. You add to the mix that the MS media player will be limited to their PROPRIETARY format with every intention of LOCKING OUT additional formats and you get monopoly. So, let's check the score here: not only can you not use product you paid for in the way that you see fit (and got fleeced by buying inferior merchandise to begin with) but now you can't use YOUR MACHINE for your uses - again you're playing on their terms. Pray tell, what are the "advantages" of this scenario? Do explain that to me. You can't? I thought not. Note of course that NONE of this has anything to do with file sharing - it has EVERYTHING to do with the soon-to-be-raped rights of the consumer. As an aside, think where you've seen something similar before. It's coming back to me... Wait! Yes! It was back when CDs were introduced and vinyl was killed off. Lofty claims were made about quality and a premium price tag was charged (today no one dares claim premium quality but a premium is being charged by virtue of the fact that you're paying more for less). The only problem was that it was almost fifteen years before the companies even started to deliver on those claims ("let's remaster everything!") and this time around they're not promising anything other than to take away your right to use what you've bought the way you would choose to. Back then, the majors had to come up with a format to match the peaks of the best analog recordings (DVD audio) and they have - for even more money (as an interesting aside, Colossus technology existed back then to allow the quality but it was deemed to be insufficiently cost effective - read: "our profit margins will shrink from the exorbitant heights we've become accustomed to, so God forbid we use this"). But I digress. To cut a long story short, buy into this garbage and you're buying yet another pig in a poke.

WMA doesn't have to be lossy. In fact, I've ripped most of my CD collection to lossless WMA already.

This is true BUT 1) the de facto standards for that level of quality are the free, open and cross-platform Monkey's Audio and FLAC formats and 2) lossless WMA is larger and lacks the error correction inherent in the other two formats. Also, do you really think ANY of these online panderers of music will support a lossless format and the larger disk space requirements and thus increased inventory costs? Or ANY standard that was free and open (and thus uncontrollable), for that matter? The question is of course rhetorical.

so how do you make LOSSLESS WMA files?.. Sure you can put the bitrate above 64kbps.. all the way to 192kbps in WMP8 at least.. but unless you choose a LOSSLESS format like Monkey Audio.. Windows Media Audio WILL BE LOSSY.. its because the very CODEC compresses audio by REMOVING bits that your ear cant "supposedly" hear.. just like MP3 and OGG and most other formats (although OGG allows for up to 5mbit wich kicks the crap of WMA and MP3)...

I downloaded the (at the time - don't know if that has changed) free WMA update that allows the creation of lossless WMA - it's not natively built in. I wasn't too impressed. As I said, the files were larger and it appeared to lack the safeguards inherent in MOnkey's and FLAC. Basically, I dumped it after trying it.

Additional information follows. Here's the link to the command line only WMA lossless to .WAV format converter: http://www.microsoft.com...F15E&displaylang=en and here is a link to an analysis / comparison between MOnkey's Audio and WMA lossless: http://www.ntu.edu.sg/ho...ioCodecs_WMA_vs_APE.htm As you can see, it performs in the typical fashion of all Microsoft audio efforts thus far, which is to say it bombs in comparison to the competition.

My bad: the free download I was referring to was the command line utility I have already provided the link to. Lossless WMA is built into WMA9 which I do NOT use (bloat has no appeal for me).

"that is...did'nt "share" music" - BTW, as an aside and in case you haven't heard: file sharing is LEGAL in Canada. It's the beginning of the end for the RIAA.

Check out Napster, they have a plan where you pay like $20/month for unlimited downloads.

But you don't have the option to just buy one song off of a CD, and if you buy a the whole CD on a music service, it's generally $10, where if you buy a CD in a store it's $13-$15.

Microsoft has developed a lossess Windows Media format.... it's quite simple really, you open up WMP9, click tools>options>Copy tab and select "Windows Meida Audio Lossless" from the dropbox.

"Rhapsody is, ok....but it's limited to playing music on my PC or wherever there is a PC AND broadband connection. I have Rhapsody so I know."

You know nothing! Pay for the service and you download DRM free CD's that you can copy, rip, play anywhere you want. The only thing worse than ignorance is lying. I'm not sure which you were doing, but you look foolish doing either.

lossless, shmossless!!! No DRM, no hassle...that's what I want. I have it already, so the microsoft service is uninteresting.

actually Napster's unlimited download is $9.99 per month.

the problem is not that i don't want to pay 10$ so i can get whatever i want. Just imagine the owner of the shop (M$ or any) just makes a "price reevaluation" and increases the price for it's service to (let's say some) 30 $. you then would have to pay the new price or quit the subscription and then loosing all your rights to play already bought songs. so it's the easyest way to firstly sell cheap a** songs and then rise the price and you THEN pay the price they want you to or loose it.

I personally don't like the idea of someone beeing able to check my files or have ANY control & knowledge of what i'm listening to. With this rights control & stuff the RIAA/labels/majors won't need any sales charts anymore, they just make some quick log analyzing and you will be a happy "glass customer" which will be happy to receieve personalized ads

did you compare the price for a DRM free file and a CD ?

if you buy an DRM free album online you pay way more than for a CD you can buy "offline" in a music store. and you have also have to pay the traffic fee (see addition below) and you don't have any cover or other stuff.

So why should i bother paying more for the right i already have by buying the CD

Here we go with traffic: in germany and other countries many ISPs have decreased traffic on well known P2P ports to keep prices down. They legitimate their doing by always pointing out that the programs that use these ports are illegal and other forhand reasons. Now if all of us would stop P2Ping and change to "legal" M$ all-into-your-OS - integrated music buying no provider would cut down the traffic limits and so the total amount of traffic would rise, and so would the monthly fee every user has to pay. So the Mi/RIAA makes even more money on yer back.

Well gee,

I don't know about your rhapsody bonnied, but you have to PAY 99c in addition to that 9.95 to be able to burn or copy any song to your PC on the Rhapsody that I have.....I don't lie, and I am by no means ignorant, but from your message, I can clearly see who is.

I think those who read my post completely misunderstood the concept of why I found MS's tech interesting.

Non-DRM stuff is wonderful - and I DID not know that napster's unlimited downloads were DRM Free....

Here's what I THOUGHT I knew...if I am wrong, correct me...

Napster and Rhapsody let you ACCESS unlimited files for 9.95 a month, that means they let you play any amount of them however much times you want from any PC that has access to the interent. Downloading the songs is another deal - you are not allowed to download a song or burn it to CD unless you PAY for that song....if I'm wrong, please forgive me. I don't use Napster, but I use Rhapsody, and I know this for a fact, BonnieD, give me a link to whatever miracle Rhapsody you have that lets you burn DRM FREE CD's for 9.95 a month.....

What I found interesting was the fact that MS proposes for you to make these songs 'mobile'....For 9.95 you are able to actually MOVE these songs to any portable device. No other program lets you do that unless you first purchase the music for 80-99c per song, or cheaper on some sites.

DRM enabled music simply means making 500000 songs portable. It's like rhapsody on your ipod basically, and I like that. 1 cd costs 11-15 dollars; remember, 9.95 does not give you ownership of music, it's giving you authorization to listen to it, just like Digital Cable...you don't own any of the shows, you are authorized however to watch them over and over because you pay for that authorization.

In that, I'm not saying that music you pay for should be DRM enabled. You pay 80 or 99c for a song, you should own it forever. You pay 12 dollars to burn a 12 song CD from Rhapsody, then you should very well own it.

But for 9.95 a month, I would much rather a service that lets me move my music to my portable device, than one which will only let me listen to it on a PC with an internet connection.

You seem to be more interested in bashing MS than anything else. Nothing you've said made any sense to me.

Am I the only person who's actually understanding what MS wants to do? All they want to do is offer the possibility of you TAKING your music around on your portable device; they're basically making it so that you have a 'rhapsody' type thing going on your Ipod. For 9.95 a month, you'll be able to download any amount of music, whatever you want - to your PC and your portable player.

If you don't pay 9.95 the next month, then your authorization expires and you can no longer play the songs.
What's wrong with that?

When you pay for Digital Cable, legally you're not supposed to 'tape' or 'copy' anything that's not free and if you do, the signal is scrambled on the vcr or whatever device you record to (depending on where you recorded from).

In the same way, MS wants to provide a service where you're authorized to access and play music wherever you want to, for 9.95 a month. Noone else does this.

Rhapsody = PAY per song/CD for actual download/burn
Napster = PAY per song/CD for actual download/burn
Itunes= PAY per song/CD for actual download/burn

The simple safeguard to prevent thieves from just taking the music and never subscribing again, is DRM, where the subscription will expire without some kind of 'proof of purchase/re-authorization'.

It's like noone read the article - people seemed to have read the headline and then post. MS doesnt seek to set DRM into music that you actually pay for ie: pay for each song; the DRM is for the music that you subscribe to ie: pay 9.95 to ACCESS all songs. That's 2 different deals completely, as different as renting a DVD from blockbuster and buying one.

Think it over....

I don't think I'm the shortsighted one here.

I DO however agree that the WMA thing is an MS ploy - but MS is, like every other company in the U.S, just trying to find a way to make mass profits.

Sorry, but napster does not have unlimited downloading for 10 or 20 dollars.

Napster lets you ACCESS their library and listen to the music on or offline on up to 3 computers for 9.95; the music is copyright protected and you can't burn or listen to it anywhere else.

Where do you get your info from?

You can however, get a CD worth for 9.95, that's 1 album, not mixed burns.

Peace.

Funky,

I totally get what you're saying, but again your missing the idea of this whole DRM thing. Noone is planning to put DRM into music you BUY. For 99c or however much they sell a song for, that's your song period.

You're gonna however have DRM in songs you rent. Like movies, for 9.95 you're gonna get to pick any amount of songs to put on your Ipod. At the end of the month, if you don't pay that 9.95 then whatever songs you rented will expire and you won't be able to play them again until you rent them again by paying that 9.95 again and getting authorization.

If they raise from 10 to 30 dollars and you decide you don't want to pay it, then yes - you'll lose the ability to play your rented music, but not the ones you bought because those are DRM free and yours to do with.

As I've said in my other posts...this is similar to pay services like cable and satellite - you pay you watch what you wanna, how many times you wanna, when you wanna - you don't pay and it all goes away until you pay again.

I don't think DRM is a tracking device. It's more of a 'authorization key' that makes it so you won't go off with 5000 songs you only paid 9.95 for.

Actually, I did know that....yeah - Canada's a great place eh?

Unfortunately, I'm in the horrible U.S where it is not legal, and where I can totally understand why.

See, I picture myself in the shoes of the artist....I work hard on 14 songs, and like 20,000 people have to be paid from the profits of that one cd; for music videos made *4-5 per album release*(and all the people on the set of each video), the recording of each song (and all the people in the studio as well as writers/collaberators, etc), the tours (that someone has to pay for; and all the people involved).

If 1 person bought my CD and then 3 billion people downloaded it a.k.a shared it....I'd be pretty screwed.

I havent got a thing wrong with file-sharing, cept I think people who download 10,000 songs and don't buy 1 CD from the artists should pay out the arse.

Look, I don't agree with the RIAA, I think they're greedy fat slobs; but I also don't agree with many people who download music illegally, play it, sell it and then call it 'sharing'. But, hey - Karma is a bia***, and many of you will either end up in a field where you're building programs, working on movies, or God forbid music - and having your product shared and not seeing any kind of money from it for that reason.

Yes...that's what I meant. $9.95 for a subscription that includes probably about 50% of thier jazz content which is the only stuff I'm interested in. Not perfect but it's been nice especially when I travel as I can download/stream to my laptop in my hotel room. I subscribed out of idle curiosity thinking I'd only keep it for a month...but I've found it to be ok for now. If Microsoft or anyone else comes up with a better mouse trap that has more jazz I'm certain to switch.

One other neat Napster feature I failed to point out. They have a radio on demand feature for subscribers where you can go into your library of Napster music that is already on your hard drive and multiple select as many tunes as you like. Once selected you push the "make radio station" button and Napster will stream a "radio" station comprised of music similar to the choices you selected from your library. It actually works great and comes up with lots of good music I may never have discovered or thought to play.

Wrong again! Rhapsody is 79 cents per song if you want to burn them to a CD, put them on your MP3 player, etc. No DRM means you can do all of those things and copy the file to all the devices you want, for 79 cents. Now, if your point is somehow that you should be able to do that with your entire saved-within-Rhapsody-library for $9.95 a month, it won't happen because it would be a horrible business model. For $9.95, I essentially get commercial free radio playing my personal selections. To me that is certainly worth $9.95. Right now, there is no better deal for actually owning the files than Rhapsody (not to be confused with RealOne Music Store, a version of Rhapsody where the files cost 99 cents). Hopefully this clarifies things for you.

It would seem to me that it would be far simpler to just make the subscription available to the player by building a wireless card into the hardware and creating a version of the software that will fit on a PDA or mobile device. My understanding is that several companies are already working on that.

Then what exactly is your argument about? That's exactly why I said rhapsody is 'ok'....The MSN Music service allows you to copy whatever music you want to a portable device (compatible ones) for 9.95 a month - as long as you keep up your subscription, it's like having 500,000 songs at your whim....
Are you not understanding? I know all about rhapsody as I said before - reread your own post....
I'm sure MSN will offer something similar to the rest where for a reasonable amount 80-99c you'll be able to obtain a DRM Free file; my point however is that I like the idea of being able to 'get any music I want' onto my portable device for 9.95 a month.

For one thing you keep getting the price wrong for purchasing the music. It's 79 cents, not 80 not 99. It's the best deal out there right now, with the lowest price and no DRM. You said you knew all about Rhapsody, but you gave a vastly incomplete picture of the service. As for the dream of renting all 500k songs, that's fine, but as I state below, I would much rather just be able to be able to access the service from a mobile device.

As for the Microsoft service, I'll probably shy away from it for the same reasons that others here have mentioned (propietary file types, DRM, bad customer service, too much control for one company, etc.)

Nice talking to you. Enjoy your music in whatever form or from whomever you get it.

For one thing you keep getting the price wrong for purchasing the music. It's 79 cents, not 80 not 99. It's the best deal out there right now, with the lowest price and no DRM. You said you knew all about Rhapsody, but you gave a vastly incomplete picture of the service. As for the dream of renting all 500k songs, that's fine, but as I state below, I would much rather just be able to be able to access the service from a mobile device.

As for the Microsoft service, I'll probably shy away from it for the same reasons that others here have mentioned (propietary file types, DRM, bad customer service, too much control for one company, etc.)

Nice talking to you. Enjoy your music in whatever form or from whomever you get it.

so.. I wonder.. it says limit WMP to only playing WMA.. will this be only about the files from the music service or will the MP3 and other file format playing abillities of WMP be completely removed?.. Its not as if I ever use it.. its Winamp and MediaPlayerClassic only for me.. but really.. GIMME A WMP REMOVAL TOOL ASAP!.. I wish the fine EU gave MS had been 500 times bigger.. it doesnt look as a slap on the wrist will do it for Microsoft.. it looks as if they need to be hung, gutted and skinned alive to get the point....
now I just hope someone will and can do that..

Timebombs? Lossy? Limitations in formats? I'm sorry but you'd have to be mental to buy into garbage like that. I'm certainly not surprised given that MS has often indicated that it is in bed with the RIAA and MPAA. Fortunately there are (and always will be) free and open solutions.

With the knowledge that my friend who owns a 100+ catalogue indie jazz label was approached by MSN and have signed a distribution contract for the new service...I'm pleased that MSN Music appears headed towards a more balanced and comprehensive music offering than many of the other stores out there. As a jazz fan, iTunes and Napster leave much to be desired.

Nice selection of indie and jazz on Rhapsody, and NO DRM.

hmm, mp3 ;)

I can plan early to NOT use their service. I don't do WMA and I don't do DRM.

"Microsoft had previously criticized Apple for bucking standards and blazing its own path. "

Thats the funniest shiznit I ever heard in my life. M$ is #1 at "blazing it's own path".. right over peoples wallets. How many RFC's has Micro$oft skimmed through like as if they were the morning paper and then thrown them in the trash?

"I don't do WMA and I don't do DRM"

I don't do Microsoft. PERIOD.

WMA is just a codec! Making hard and fast pronouncements about what you do and don't do usually lead to having to rethink your stance at some point. DRM is here to stay in one form or another. If you plan on legally "purchasing" and downloading music online in the future, you WILL do DRM of one flavor or another. I buy CD's, SACD's, DVD-A, downloadables, records, and every once in a while tapes. Why you would want to exclude a codec out of blind hatred is sad. Kinda like saying...I don't open Word docs or I don't do PDF. All of the modern codecs at decent bit rates sound just fine...better to enjoy the music than to fight a meaningless war based on hate.

My "hard and fast" decisions are made based on years of experience with a company that couldn't care less about their customers. I also find WMA a vastly inferior format. If you want to use WMA, feel free. Do not feel free to judge my choice. As for the DRM, I am using a service right now with a large selection of songs and NO DRM! I download the songs to a CD, copy the CD, tranfer the files to any other format, etc. I'll repeat NO DRM. The service, Rhapsody. The day I have to deal with DRM to get my music is the day I stop purchasing music.

So on one hand you call WMA9 an inferior codec and then on the other you tell me that you use Rhapsody, download a compressed file, uncompress it and burn it to CD then recompress it through a 2nd generation of lossy compression and that sounds better?

Download any of the double blind comparison applications available on the net and compare any of the modern codecs to WMA9 at 128kbps or higher and I'm certain you will be hard pressed to identify one from the other.

I'm a sound mixer by profession and I know the truth on this. Your statements again seem tainted by blind hatred of all things Microsoft and are not born of any true and blind evaluation of the codecs. Especially given your double compressed Rhapsody methods.

I'm not a professional sound mixer, I'm a listener, and listeners will always buy what sounds best to them. I have listened to wma files and mp3, wav, ogg, etc. The best sounding files I got from any music service were from Rhapsody. Add to that the very important lack of DRM, and I have a perfect combination. You are certainly free to choose you own format and service, based on whatever test you like. However, I'll stick with my choice in this case.

By the way, accusing people who don't like something made by Microsoft of hating all things from Microsoft is a weak and tired argument. I dislike certain certain aspects of Microsoft's treatment of their customers. I thought I made that clear.

Here's what I clearly read in your post. You are already planning on not using a Microsoft service that you have not seen, heard, or had a chance to evaluate. One can only assume that your sole reason for that decision is based on the fact that it's from Microsoft because that's really the only thing that is concrete about it thus far. If I've misread the cynacism that is apparent to me in your words I am sorry.

Not only did you misread, but you assumed; two things you should probably avoid in any discussion. I don't buy every car that I understand from research and customer opinion is bad. I certainly don't try every online service I hear about. I base my opinion on my personal experience with the file type in question and my experience, and that of others, with the company that is intending to start the service. You imply that I got my opinion off the top of my head, which is obviously not true. I have to think that the "cynacism" you believe you hear came from you head, not my words.

Reasons I will not use the MSN Music service:

1. I don't like the quality of the file type.
2. I don't like the company's past lack of concern for the wants and desires of it's customers.
3. DRM

I don't think I can state this any more clearly.

I agree with all of your statements and will add a fourth, to whit: I do not waste my time with low bitrate dreck. When I use lossy music on my portable and in my car, I use strictly higher bitrates because I can hear the difference quite easily between a 128bit encode and one at 192. When WMA is put up against other formats at higher bitrates, the artifact count mounts significantly above those of the other formats (OGG, MP3) and the codec is quickly outclassed. This is repeatable and provable with any audio editor (GoldWave, Audacity). 'nuff said.

This is no longer a comment area to discuss the validity of an MSN music service, this is now a forum of pure bias. My mp3 playing app of choice? iTunes, how do I encode my music? 192 kb MP3 files. Where do i stand in this arena? AAC files and WMA files are both very impressive new generation codecs that can give wonderful sound quality at lower bitrates (in case some of you missed it thats the point of advancing compression technology) An individual experience with encoding in WMA or AAC can vary however the quality they get will never truly equal the quality you get from the respective music stores at the same bitrate. Reason is that those files are encoded directly from source material not a regular CD of the rack. And also if you want high quality WMA files you can get those from musicmatch that offers 160kb files that are equal in many tests to 192 MP3. However my biggest problem with this is some of the most mudane things people argue about. Use ogg, flac, mp3, lossless files? Look you can not seriously think thats really gonna happen do u? Using any of those compressed formats without DRM would promote piracy in their eyes and using lossless would require too much HD space and since we have come to realize that many of these services don't make a dime off selling downloaded content (itunes included, verified by cnet.com) they have no major incentive to waste money for no return. I guess what I'm trying to say is DRM is here to stay if you wanna download music legally its either AAC or WMA pickup and shutup already.

Thanks, I'll take mine physcial. Optimal quality, no DRM BS and I can do with it whatever I see fit *including making lossy copies for my portable and car*. BTW, let's see just how far the music business gets by not giving customers what they want in the digital age, shall we?

Roj,

Do you honestly think that ANY intellectual property rights holders are going to support ANY online store without some form of DRM?

What digital distribution system do you envision that will work and prevent widescale illegal copying of music?

Personally I'm with one of the other posters in that I puchase my music on CD and encode for my car and home audio distribution. Lossless WMA9 for home and WMA9 160kbps for my Phatnoise car system.

No I don't. However 1) selling lossy is a con job 2) selling time bombs is a con job 3) locking out non-DRM formats is a con job 4) the pricing scheme of a buck a song is a con job. And no I won't be doing online digital music shopping other than to order the odd CD original media from mymusic.com or CD Universe. Why? All of the above reasons. Now, you asked if I thought any of the majors would do business online without DRM and I said no. Do I think they should? YES. Why? Ask Radiohead. 'nuff said. HINT: price your product reasonably, provide good value to the buyer while still making a reasonable profit and you'll make money (this isn't rocket science - business has always run that way). Don't and you'll face extinction. Gee, I wonder what's happening today...

"What digital distribution system do you envision that will work and prevent widescale illegal copying of music?"

Try this: a buck a song. Lossless. Half goes to the artist. No DRM. Yes, there will be piracy. Big Deal. Therehas ALWAYS been piracy. There ALWAYS will be. It has helped GROW the music business. People are posessive creatures. Many prefer to OWN the original. They like the pretty packaging, the liner notes, etc. I know a LOT of people like that and I've been collecting music for over 30 years (yes, I started in the vinyl era). Furthermore, they want to play the original because of the quality of the recording. However, they certainly aren't going to do so if the price is exorbitant - they'll start compromising. You don't want potential customers to start doing that because then you lose your market. Today, the price is exorbitant and it has been for at least a decade - period. The majors would like to take the current system (which clearly isn't working and not because of downloaded music - just ask the Harvard Business School) and make online busic in the same image and likeness. It isn't going to work there either - that's not a projection, it's a statement of fact. Why? The situation there for them is worse. The 'Net is too diverse and it's uncontrollable unlike the physical channel. If the majors don't realize this, individual artists will use the'Net to roll their own. All the majors are now is middle management - they just don't know it yet.

"Personally I'm with one of the other posters in that I puchase my music on CD and encode for my car and home audio distribution. Lossless WMA9 for home and WMA9
160kbps for my Phatnoise car system. "

I'm the same except I wouldn't dream of using any MS codec - they're crap. I use MP3 at 192 for both my portable and my SUV. OGG is finally making it to player firmware - I'll be using that soon. FLAC is supposed to follow. I use Monkey's Audio and FLAC for home use and as you'll note even today, as jaded as I am, I still purchase CDs.

>>>An individual experience with encoding in WMA or AAC can vary however the quality they get will never truly equal the quality you get from the respective music stores at the same bitrate. Reason is that those files are encoded directly from source material not a regular CD of the rack.

My response got truncated. I don't believe that any of the record companies are going back to original masters for encoding. More likely encoding is done from production CD's. Are you just speculating on this?

I can see we share many values in common but I do take exception to your proclamation that WM9 codecs are crap. I think if you take your self avowed feelings towards Microsoft out of the equation and actually did "double blind" testing I think you would find yourself hard pressed to tell the difference between CD, ANY of the lossless codecs and ANY of the modern codecs at 192kbps. I'll venture that most listeners can't reliably tell the difference between any of the modern codecs at 128kbps. I had a moment on a usenet group a while bag where I smugly thought I could hear the difference and pretty much had to eat crow when I downloaded an ABX application, encoded some CD's with various codecs and encoders, decoded them back to wave and made the comparisons. There are many ABX applications out there to download...here's a link to just one of them:
http://www.ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html

Be honest with us and yourself. Download an ABX app, do the tests, then report back your findings. I think you will be both surprised and humbled. Use the codec of your choosing, as should we all, but please don't proclaim WM9 crap until you have actually proven it to yourself through ABX testing.

There really isn't satisfying some people. I have a suped up focus (LOL, imagine that) with an audiophile + system in it...it's a kick a** blaupunkt system with 8 mega speakers and a really nice woofer seated nicely in the trunk along with a big boomy amp. Now, I don't know about you....but I....layman (or however you spell it) that I am haven't done any 'theory' etc etc testing. I do REAL world testing - and all of my results were the same.

I stuck a cd (original) in the system and played a song, I did one club, one pop, a dance and a slow jam. I myself tried it myself so I didn't look like an idiot and I had my friends do it too, and in every case, noone could identify any difference between the original CD and the WMA copies I made onto a cd (yes, my system plays mp3 and wma and a couple other formats)....

So then this I ask you...what's the bellyaching about????

You can't hear any difference between the original and the so called 'lossy' or crappy WMA as some people would call it, so I really don't get it. About the ONLY time I heard any sort of difference, and it was EXTREMELY subtle and you REALLY had to listen out for it was in the treble or sharp sounds and some midrange (got a little lower) when I went down to 128.

Unless you're going to do some kind of mastering or DJing which requires high quality lossless in order to do better mixing (where the sound has to be the same because there is minor quality loss when you rip out certain electronic instruments or over sample, etc.) I really don't see the necessity for lossless. But, that's my 2c. Maybe all the loud music has deafened me somewhat.