Zune's Viral DRM Will Violate Creative Commons

lopy writes "Medialoper has noted that Zune's highly touted wireless file sharing will infect otherwise unprotected audio files with proprietary DRM. In cases where users are sharing songs covered by any of the Creative Commons licenses, this would be a clear violation of those license. From the CC FAQ: 'If a person uses DRM tools to restrict any of the rights granted in the license, that person violates the license.' It'll be interesting to see how and if the CC community responds." An anonymous reader wrote in mentioning a post to the Crave blog, relatedly exploring how the Zune stacks up to the iPod.

Take that back

[neonprimetime]

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.

This story should be pulled immediately! Slashdot does not tolerate cheap shots towards Microsoft

Re:Who is liable?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Assuming the Zune allows violation of the Creative Commons license in this way, who is liable? Is it Microsoft, for making the device, or the user, for distributing Creative Commons-licensed material in a way that's incompatible with its license?

You must be new here.

Re:Such a crazy story

[payndz]

How many people will buy a zune ?
Ok of those select few, how many have CC content they are or were planning to put on the zune ?
Is anyone's hand up?

You could have got the same result in less time by not asking the second question...

Re:I don't know if Microsoft is liable here...

[BadAnalogyGuy]

The difference is that CC and "free" licenses open themselves up to abuse because they grant so much leeway in the method of distribution of content (and software). With a normal copyright, the user gets no redistribution rights except for what falls under the concept of First Sale. There is no question that redistribution violates the copyright.

CC licenses blur that line considerably. All of a sudden, you grant almost free usage of content to your audience. The copyrights you retain are essentially non-existant. When you declare terms of use, you start peeling that freedom back again, blurring the line further. If the CC guidelines state that no electronic blocks (DRM) may be attached to the content, how do you reconcile that with the fact that computers and the internet are not universally available and present themselves as implicit content locking mechanisms (you can't access these electronic files without also getting online)? The entire act of creating digital content means that the content is restricted to only those who can gain access to it.

The CC license requirement against DRM is non-sensical because the content itself, at the source, is never out of reach from those who would be interested in it. The DRM is just another mode of distribution, like tissue paper or papyrus. It may not be the optimal method of information transfer, but it's better than nothing.

We are...

[Gallenod]

...Zune of Borg. Lower your firewalls and prepare to be accessed. Your audio and video uniqueness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile.

Copyright Violation?

[bluekanoodle]

So if I write and record a song, copyright it and then release it my friends who then share it with a Zune, does that mean I can sue Microsoft for Creating a derivitive work based on my copyrighted materials?

Perhaps I could then send a legal blackmail letter to microsoft offering to settle for $3700 and if they don't accept, I can recover up to $150000 for each violation? Regardless of what the actual loss is, it seems the precedent set by the RIAA would declare that each copyright violation for a song is worth more then actual damages.

Re:fool me once...

[d34thm0nk3y]

No kidding. I am so sick of Slashdot's pro-microsoft anti-apple bias!

Why players need video screens...

[Dareth]

"If a tune has any texture, any depth, any insight at all, it can take a lot more than three listens to develop an ear for that song. Too bad. Clearly this is not the era to be exposing listeners to Beethoven or Mozart."

That is why these players need video screens. You need "Eyes" ,to see the tits and ass, to appreciate modern music. What if the person who sings/performs the tune is not beautiful... hires some dancer/models..."Ears" are entirely optional.

Re:Why players need video screens...

[jb.hl.com]

I like Radiohead, Pink Floyd and The Smiths. If your idea was implemented, that would mean I would spend an inordinate amount of time looking at Thom Yorke, Roger Waters and Morrissey.

I would, on balance, rather kill myself.