Since then, all of our songs licensed through wallmart no longer work. Songs downloaded from Rhapsody no longer work. Windows Media player (and XP) freeze suddenly and crash when Zune is running or itunes. We hate it.

if i buy a song for $.99, why can’t i do what i like with it
It’s my song, so why can’t i download it to an mp3 player of my choice?

I was seriously considering buyin a zune, but if i can’t download my songs
from napster to it, then what’s the point?

Allthough that footnote says it will play unprotected WMA it does not state it does not play protected wma content.
The original text states it plays content that was bought according to the dmr protection that was added.
That might well mean it plays wma audio content from playforsure online shops but not video content from amazon or cinema now.

Why is no one questioning Microsoft for not allowing their own DRM to work on their own device. no one expected a MS device to play apple DRM files. We did expect it to play Microsoft’s “industry Standard” DRM

Take note: Nope, Zunes (Or any other mp3 player other than iPods) will NEVER play iTunes-DRMed AAC. Why? Because Apple has stated over and over that they will not license their FairPlay DRM tools. It’s how they keep you locked in to iPod + iTunes, dude. You can’t take your songs anyplace else.

Figures a Harvard law student would make such a glaring error. Do they just pick people off the street at random?

Just because the PlayForSure formats aren’t listed DOESN’T mean that they aren’t supported. It simply means they aren’t listed.

Oh…and I copied your blog to a few splogs. I figured, since you hate copyright so much you wouldn’t mind if someone else made money using your content.

Tit for tat, and all that.

Nice job turning Digg into a forum for your blog. Have fun watching your ad revenue permanently take a dip.

Copying music without the copyright holders express authority is the foundation of copyright! I hate it when people gloss over theft. How in the world do you justify being able to download any wma in their library for 10$ a month and doing whatever you please with it. Simply ridiculous.

Anon, I disagree, in part for reasons mentioned here:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings/2006/08/28#a1893

Moreover, that is not a contradiction — regardless of the effect on the music services, the uses are still non-infringing. “Endangering a business model” does not equal copyright infringement. You might be violating a contract with the service provider, but keeping the songs after you cancel a subscription is not copyright infringement.

Anon, I don’t have time to explain this fully right now, but see this post:

Hi Derek, you are contradicting yourself and I think purposefully ignoring the inconsistencies in your anti-DRM world view.

I quote:
“The real culprit here is the DMCA — but for that bad law, customers could legally convert DRMed files into whatever format they want, and tech creators would be free to reverse engineer the DRM to create compatible devices. Even though those acts have traditionally been and still are non-infringing, the DMCA makes them illegal and stifles fair use, innovation, and competition. ”

That is simply not true. DRM enables music rental services to exist. Without the protection of DRM, there is no way a company could bring you legal access to millions of tracks for $10/mo. Without DRM, their customers would (illegally!) be able to keep the music beyond the terms of their subscription.

Reverse-engineering the DRM endagers the business models of all the music subscription services.

And people wonder why illegal downloads thrive…