MS cr**s on MSN music subscribers | The Coffeehouse

Ray6

As reported by Jack Schofield and his fake pipe ....

MSN wrote:

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. License keys already obtained as of August 31, 2008 will continue to allow you to listen to songs on all the computers that you previously authorized for service

So that's it.

When you buy a new computer, your music collection is lost.

I'm hoping that MS will do the right thing, and replace their customers files with DRM-free ones.

rdaJay
Ya best look out when Omar come callin', yo.

No, you're not lost. You burn the music to a CD and re-rip.

But, it brings up the fact that you never really BOUGHT the music. You're merely licensing it. And I don't know one non-geek who actually is aware of that fact. (If I pay $.99 at iTunes, I OWN the music.....) Not quite.

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

rdaJay wrote:
No, you're not lost. You burn the music to a CD and re-rip.

But, it brings up the fact that you never really BOUGHT the music. You're merely licensing it. And I don't know one non-geek who actually is aware of that fact. (If I pay $.99 at iTunes, I OWN the music.....) Not quite.

The MAFIAA seem to want it both ways. They claim you have a "license" to the media when it suits them, yet they claim you have "bought" the media when it also suits them.

Broke a CD? You bought it, you need to buy a replacement. You can't download another copy and use it under the same "license"

Downloaded music from an online store? You licensed it, you're not allowed to copy it to another device due to DRM.

ManipUni
Proving QQ for 5 years!

Well when you buy a CD you don't own the music either.

But that being said when you purchase a CD that CD won't suddenly become disabled randomly because the music producer goes out of business.

Really bad move by Microsoft. I wouldn't buy any DRM based media from them now and frankly I'm starting to wonder how much I want to continue to use iTunes in the future.

I hope Microsoft gets sued.

Isshou

ManipUni wrote:
Well when you buy a CD you don't own the music either.

But that being said when you purchase a CD that CD won't suddenly become disabled randomly because the music producer goes out of business.

Really bad move by Microsoft. I wouldn't buy any DRM based media from them now and frankly I'm starting to wonder how much I want to continue to use iTunes in the future.

I hope Microsoft gets sued.

Microsoft getting sued (and losing) is unlikely. I'm pretty sure it was there in the terms of service agreement. Likely spelled out very legalistic. It's not much different than any of the other DRMed music providers. If they decide to stop their licensing server or stop licensing even certain songs or switch to a new service, then you're out the song since you weren't paying to own the song but the rights to "lease" the song as long as the provider was providing it over that service.

I wonder what the reaction would be if this was Apple announcing that they were shutting down their licensing servers for iTunes and switching to a newer service, iNoise, and will no longer support license retrieval for their old iTunes songs.

GoddersUK
I CAN has cheezburger and you CAN'T has stop me!

This is why I never feel happy purchasing things (software, TV, films) by download. I'm not happy unless I have it on physical media. Seems more permanent too.

ManipUni
Proving QQ for 5 years!

Isshou wrote:
Microsoft getting sued (and losing) is unlikely. I'm pretty sure it was there in the terms of service agreement.

Judges can use their discretion in certain cases, even contract law, particularly to set a precedent.

If a class action lawsuit is brought and it travels up the courts high enough Microsoft could lose, and lose in a very big way.

It could also put other multimedia resale firms on notice that any similar actions would land them into trouble.

Bass
www.spreadfirefox.com/5years/

Isshou wrote:

ManipUni wrote:Well when you buy a CD you don't own the music either.

But that being said when you purchase a CD that CD won't suddenly become disabled randomly because the music producer goes out of business.

Really bad move by Microsoft. I wouldn't buy any DRM based media from them now and frankly I'm starting to wonder how much I want to continue to use iTunes in the future.

I hope Microsoft gets sued.

Microsoft getting sued (and losing) is unlikely. I'm pretty sure it was there in the terms of service agreement. Likely spelled out very legalistic.

Something written in a contract can be disputed in court fairly easily. That's how doctors get taken to court everyday here in the states. The only thing that matters in court is justice, and the purpose of the courts is to serve justice, even when it means disagreeing with the conventional interpretations of law or what is written in contracts.

pathfinder
Hard work never killed anybody, but why take a chance?

step 1- shut down licensing servers

step 2 - stop licensing ~~fairplay~~ Play4Sure. (because rhapsody is their only customer)

Creative and Sandisk players are now worthless.

Should have bought an iPod or Zune

Ray6

rdaJay wrote:
No, you're not lost. You burn the music to a CD and re-rip.

Mmm ... fine if you only have a few dozen tracks, not such a tasty prospect if you have hundreds.

Ray6

ManipUni wrote:
Well when you buy a CD you don't own the music either.

But that being said when you purchase a CD that CD won't suddenly become disabled randomly because the music producer goes out of business.

Really bad move by Microsoft. I wouldn't buy any DRM based media from them now and frankly I'm starting to wonder how much I want to continue to use iTunes in the future.

I hope Microsoft gets sued.

I stopped buying from iTunes ages ago. Poor quality tracks and they can only be played on iPods.

There are loads of sites out there which will allow you to buy DRM-free MP3/AAC tracks. There is no reason why anyone reasonably computer literate has to buy the junk that Apple and Microsoft are pushing.

MS pulling the rug from under its customers just proves why you shouldn't.

Ray6

pathfinder wrote:

step 1- shut down licensing servers

step 2 - stop licensing ~~fairplay~~ Play4Sure. (because rhapsody is their only customer)

Creative and Sandisk players are now worthless.

Should have bought an iPod or Zune

What's to stop Microsoft pulling the same trick with the Zune a few years from now?

Apple is less likely to try it, but again, there is nothing stopping them either.

DRM-free is the only way to be sure.

elmer
I'm on my very last life.

Bass wrote:
The only thing that matters in court is justice, and the purpose of the courts is to serve justice, even when it means disagreeing with the conventional interpretations of law or what is written in contracts.

Courts == Justice ??

Oh, puhleeze... now I’ve heard it all.

Courts are a place for over-paid narcissistic a**holes to play risk-free games with you and your fortunes. The more you can afford to pay them to play the game, the better your odds of hitting a winner.

The courts are interested in the law, the arguments presented, and precedents already set. Courts are VERY reluctant to ever make an interpretation of the law that is not already well known and accepted, as they are well aware that such deviations will more than likely be overturned by a higher court.

ManipUni
Proving QQ for 5 years!

elmer wrote:
The courts are interested in the law, the arguments presented, and precedents already set. Courts are VERY reluctant to ever make an interpretation of the law that is not already well known and accepted, as they are well aware that such deviations will more than likely be overturned by a higher court.

That's why higher courts exist. That's also why the appeals process exist.

Working as intended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

elmer
I'm on my very last life.

ManipUni wrote:

elmer wrote: The courts are interested in the law, the arguments presented, and precedents already set. Courts are VERY reluctant to ever make an interpretation of the law that is not already well known and accepted, as they are well aware that such deviations will more than likely be overturned by a higher court.

That's why higher courts exist. That's also why the appeals process exist.

Working as intended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

The reality of life is that if you are a judge who has precedent setting decisions overturned too often, then you will be marginalised.

In the American system, you can be sacked, while in the UK system you will be risking your future advancement through the court system.

This is why judges are reluctant to make decisions that involve setting precedents in interpreting the law.

If you are on the losing side of that scenario, then you have a tough job arguing to an appeal court, as they will normally only hear arguments involving errors in law or errors in process... not setting a precedent, is a hard one to present as an error in law.

I know of this stuff from much first-hand experience of championing just causes, only to be out-spent by the other side, or having judges refuse to risk making a precedent for fear of the appeal courts.

BlackTiger
If you stumbled and fell down, it doesn't mean yet, that you're going in the wrong direction.

"Never pay for TV License..." (Doctor Who, 2005) Tongue Out