Microsoft denies putting 'copyright cop' in Zune
The New York Times suggested Wednesday that future versions of the Zune might come with a tiny cop capable of catching digital lawbreakers.
And no, I'm not talking about some sort of bundled action flick.
In a blog, the Times' Saul Hansell said that, as part of Microsoft's deal to get NBC TV shows, it had agreed to look into the possibility of adding technology into the MP3 player that would scan a user's collection for unauthorized content.
The blog cites Microsoft spokesman Adam Sohn as saying that the software maker is exploring antipiracy measures with NBC. Microsoft issued a statement on Wednesday denying that there was any agreement to filter content.
"Microsoft has no plans or commitments to implement content filtering features in the Zune family of devices as part of our content distribution deal with NBC," the software maker said in a statement.
Sohn echoed the sentiment. "We've agreed to work with these guys on a number of issues, but we have no plans or commitment to put filtering technology as part of this arrangement with NBC," he told CNET News.com.
Microsoft launched its Zune video store this week with about 800 TV show episodes, including content from NBC, which earlier pulled its content from iTunes in a dispute over pricing and other issues. Despite the apparent coup with NBC, Microsoft is still lagging Apple badly on the sales front.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
I don't understand why this is a problem. If MS wants to do this then don't buy a Zune. Simply buy something else that doesn't block your content. If in the future nobody will sell such a device perhaps someone can get investors to help start a company to build said device because people will obviously buy it. Just let the Zune sit on the shelf where it belongs.
"In a blog, the Times' Saul Hansell said that,..."
When did the New York Times newspaper become a "blog"?
This is really stupid..... I think if ppl can get something that doesn't have this sort of "spyware" on it, they'll buy it instead.
It's worth noting that neither NBC nor Microsoft have asked us to correct or clarify anything in our post. After Microsoft posted a comment to its blog on the subject, I appended this to our post:
UPDATE
In the Zune Insider Blog, Cesar Menendez, a member Microsoft?s Zune team, refers to this post, and the blog discussion it prompted. He writes:
We have no plans or commitments to implement any new type of content filtering in the Zune devices as part of our content distribution deal with NBC.
It?s worth noting that Mr. Perrette told me that Microsoft committed to explore filtering; he didn?t say it committed to implementing those filters.
Here is what Mr. Sohn, the Microsoft spokesman, told me yesterday when I asked him about what Mr. Perrette said: ?I don?t think they are wrong, but we are not going to characterize those discussions.? Later he added, ?We have agreed to work with NBC across a range of topics, and protection of copyrighted material is certainly one of them.?
The problem is the definition of stolen property. Such software might consider a recording of TV show that you ripped to a Zune video to watch while on the train to work in the morning as "stolen". Same for a podcast, Internet radio broadcast, etc. I agree with others who state the obvious: As long as there are non-DRM alternatives, MS would only kill the Zune with content control/filtering. I have a Zune and I like it. I just wish that any resources directed to hair-brained schemes like this were diverted to real improvements: Direct Internet access from the Zune to allow play and purchase of content should be right at the top of the list.
--mark d.
I have nothing to hide, and yet I care, because any type of data-sniffing procedure will:
1. Inevitably fall under the control of either someone who will abuse it, or someone who is inept; OR
2. It will be automated and end up detecting false positives that will assume the user is guilty until he/she can prove themselves innocent; OR
3. The definition of what is illegal/immoral/unsavoury/antisocial will slowly morph and enlarge until one day you realize that it includes you too.
These three trajectories lead to one result: innocent people getting punished.
How do we know what it classifies suspect material? How do we know it won't start tagging things? There are so many unanswered questions in a system like this to just let the notion be accepted. This is especially true with MS's past attempts to monitor. I thought MS had learned its own lesson, but apparently with a little pushing NBC might get them to revisit it.
What is truly missing is an understanding between producers, marketers (and promoters) and consumers. iTunes got most of this right, but still has some work to go. As long as there is distrust between those groups, there will always be animosity, which ends up causing drm and the retribution of piracy by consumers. No one wants to talk about that, but that alone is the core issue that is keeping the industry from moving forward. The labels have absolutely no respect for consumers, and consumers have lost respect in the labels. While some have tried to circumvent the current system controlled by the labels, it is a very tough road, and labels know this, and are making it as tough as possible. They know that the minute the majority of artists break free from the traditional label-based system, they are out of that business. So, naturally, they want to keep control over it.
This is the polar opposite action they need to take. They need to respect their customers before ANYTHING else, and make that respect visible. Then, the need to reaffirm that same respect with their artists. Then, and only then, they need to figure out where their new roles are to serve all interests. They cannot get respect without giving it, and right now, the only people getting any respect from the labels (aside from their top 5% producers) are the RIAA and MPAA. That is it, and without respect, it is only a matter of time before the artists totally abandon the old system and go straight to consumers. They can either have the support and keep their positions or watch as the industry circumvents them completely out of the loop. This is not the first industry to nullify the intermediary, and it certainly will not be the last.
Sounds to me like this is one more reason to ignore the Zune (my other reason is the FM radio that it contains).
GEMS (Genieve, Eric, Mariebeth & Stephanie)
I saw an earlier post suggesting that the moron who traded off a major retailer against a puny one -- plus restrictions that virtually guarantee nobody will dare to risk their other media -- would be summarily fired. But can you imagine the higher-up who has to justify THIS fiasco?
Or is it all a horrible misunderstanding? Maybe, Balmer got distracted by Yahoo when he was trying to recover from their earlier bonehead move, to brick their PlaysForSure customers' functionality, but an Outlook error translated his instructions into creating "Sue For Playing" for the Zune.
Whatever, I can never figure out why anybody would do business w/ Microsoft media products, where there are several easier, more flexible and cheaper alternatives (unless your time is worth less than $1.75/hour).
- by codewrangler May 8, 2008 11:51 AM PDT
- I wasn't even aware the Zune was still a product, let alone had a store????
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (23 Comments)