Reader Comments

"The music industry believes, of course, that a good portion of those songs were stolen in some way, either from other's music collections, or from online file sharing services." And I say rightly so. 10,000 songs? I'd fathom 10% were 'from a friend' as a conservative estimate. Do I think this is a reason for the crusade RIAA and MPAA have went on? Of course not, they did not plan properly for digital recordings, and now they have to pay the piper. They are trying to get their own retribution now with DRM and lawsuits, but and eye for an eye is just silly. -- You know, people ride MS pretty hard about all this capital they are throwing into the Zune. You know what it makes me, as a consumer, feel like when I see MS putting throwing all of this into it? Makes me feel confident that they will support it, that its here for the long haul. You can't play the conservative business model when you are running against someone who has uber dominance. Phantom tried that when they tried to enter the gaming market, they died.

"You know what it makes me, as a consumer, feel like when I see MS putting throwing all of this into it? Makes me feel confident that they will support it, that its here for the long haul." You've got to be kidding me. Talk about spin. Deals like this only prove how desperate the company is and how inevitable it is that they will fail, so inevitable that they are actually paying another company for every product that they sell. And that's in addition to the losses they're already taking on the device. Not only is it completely, utterly insane (what if I never put any Universal music on the device...Microsoft still has to pay them?), it sets a very bad precedent that Universal will now try to use against other people like Apple. Thanks a lot, Microsoft.

I think that Microsoft would do well to add in music groups like Dance/Rock-Industries (hereto abbreviated as DI/RI), which features completely 100% royalty-free, and 100% legal-to-share tracks under "Copyleft" or the "Creative Commons License". This way users can experience new tunes that have probably never been heard before from artists that are trying to get a break. http://www.dance-industries.com http://www.rock-industries.com (as I write this, currently both sites are down for maintenence, unfortunately - check back later) Here's some VERY AWESOME songs on DI that are on my current playlist: Dark Night Epic Edit (Depeche Mode Mix) by Phase2 Piano Tune 2005 by Alphadelta (Only available as a sample clip now because it's published) Take My Time (Remix) by Alphadelta (Completely original mix, with the artist's vocals - VERY GOOD!) Jigga Jigga! by Morge (Remix of the Scooter song of the same name, but much better) Sunscape by Phase2 Mactabilis by Phase2 (YES, it has MAC in the name...*sigh*) My current favourite artists on DI are Alphadelta, Phase2, Morge, and Rogue Elements. Check em out! Also, Nettwerk (a Canadian company), is really decent. They don't get along too well with the RIAA, though. Here's a blurb from their website about it: "Litigation is destructive, it must stop .... as per Nettwerk copyrights, we have never sued anybody and all our music is open source to encourage fans to share it with others and help us promote our Artists. As per those Artists we manage on other labels (Majors), we take issue with those labels claiming that litigating our fans is in our interest, as it clearly is not." See, music labels aren't all bad! If they had their way, they would probably strip the 3x3 sharing restriction on the Zune for their music.

I should point out to anybody that gets access to DI or RI that they only allow 2 simultaneous IP connections to curb excessive bandwidth, so you can't go download crazy on their site. If you have multiple windows open to their site, you start downloading, and then notice it's unresponsive, that's why. What this means is you can download 1 file at a time while using the other connection for browsing. They do have a Flash-based player for each song though, so you can be downloading 1 song, while listening to another.

Nothing beat the liberty of illegaly downloaded musics that you can do whatever you want with it. Share, listen, sample it for your next YTMND...

"Thanks a lot, Microsoft." What are you whining about? You won't buy a Zune anyway. Sheesh. -=-=-=-=- Leave it to the record companies to find new and exciting ways to bugger us and the artists they claim to represent. I believe MS had very little choice here. They have to try and catch up to the iTunes/iPod monster - that's business. To do that, they need a fairly huge catalogue. All the record companies are in a position now to take complete and utter advantage of the situation. MS has two choices: 1) Pay the buck per device and get on with Zune or 2) Give Universal, David Geffen, and the rest of those record exec azzholes the middle finger and scrap Zune. The latter is not an option considering how much hype (both good and bad) they have created to this point... if they were to scrap Zune, Apple would be happy and their minions would be all over MS for their "broken promises" and so on. To me, this is crappy becuase, as I've said before, I support the artist, NOT the record companies. I was considring either a Zune or an iPod for my next player (NOT for the online store, but for the devices) and I may have to go with an iPod simply because I think this deal MS made is horrible. I don't want even a penny of mine going to the recrod execs. ... which begs the question: How in the hell does MS giving Universal a buck a player help the artists? I mean really?

@sticknick: "What are you whining about? You won't buy a Zune anyway. Sheesh." I'm whining because Microsoft is setting a bad precedent. Now Universal will demand this payment plan from everyone they do business with or else they'll pull their music, and they'll point at Microsoft and say "See, they're going along with it!" Don't attack me just because Microsoft has absolutely no balls. Steve Jobs actually fought against the music industry not to raise prices on the iTunes Store.

Preseton: If Steve Jobs wants to fight, then let him. You'll have nothing to worry about. I know he fought against raising prices and it was one of the few things he's done that I've appluded. You obviously missed the part of my rant where I said I'll probably be getting an iPod as my next player instead of a Zune because the deal MS made is crap. If MS wants to bend to deals like this, then I dont want a Zune. And I have a feeling that there will be more out there that think the same.

"I'm whining because Microsoft is setting a bad precedent." No, actually you are whining about Microsoft setting an example Apple can't afford to follow. 1USD royalties doesn't have any impact on the consumer, only on the manufacturer. Now these little media toys already have a ludicrous markup on them already, so there shouldn't be a giant problem. Yes, Microsoft is essentially paying Universal to do nothing. UMG obviously has close ties to Universal Pictures, and the Zune can play video... if the UMG venture turns a good profit, then we may even see... dare I say it?... exclusive movies from Universal.

It is a bad precedent, nevertheless. Considering that Microsoft is not getting anything in return and that none of the pre-loaded music on the Zune belongs to Universal anyway, I don't see the point. Yes, this won't have any impact on consumers. The price of the Zune is going to remain at $249.99, but Microsoft was in a desperate situation and Universal happily took advantage of it. You know what is worse? MS is going to have similar deals with other record companies now. Great!

It's amazing how much LEGAL free music there is out there if you know where to look. Artist pages are full of it, there's a ton available on legitimate artist pages on sites like myspace, heck, even Apple gives a couple free songs away every week. "The Music Industry" is getting some karmic payback for years and years of greed and ripping off artists. When it becomes just as lucrative for the "average" artist to market him/herself and JUST SAY NO to the pathetic deals they get from the major labels, things will be better for everyone.

---- snark alert ----- "Under the terms of the deal, Microsoft will pay Universal $1 for each Zune device sold..." Wow. That ought to be good for, what, fifty bucks? :-) (Relax. It's a joke.)

By the way, isn't this illegal? Can Universal offer the same content to Apple and Microsoft and charge Microsoft more for it?

"Wow. That ought to be good for, what, fifty bucks?" Fifty thousand, if you ask Paul.

"Wow. That ought to be good for, what, fifty bucks?" 50USD for doing nothing is better than 0USD for doing nothing, no? Heh. --- "By the way, isn't this illegal? Can Universal offer the same content to Apple and Microsoft and charge Microsoft more for it?" Contracts are just expressed agreements, if you agree, it cannot be illegal, in civil land. If you agree to a criminal act, its still illegal. But this stuff doesn't venture into criminal law.

I think people are blowing this out of proportion. For an industry that they don't know very much about, they sure are making a lot of opinions for something that's so irrelevent to them. Most of the money that goes to the label is used for promoting their artists - the majority of the cost of production. There is no doubt in my mind that Microsoft is leveraging Universal's catalog to promote sales of their new baby into an already widespread digital audio market, and Universal in return wants assurances that it'll be a worthwhile investment. If you look on Direct2Drive now, you'll also see that 20th Century Fox (and FOX TV) have movie and TV downloads, even though D2D was always just a game download site. Whether the contract works one way or the other is up to the parties involved. Just before now, Microsoft was still trying to get major parties involved in populating the Zune Marketplace, but now they have their first big label. I say CHEERS to them. Must I refresh everyone's memory from awhile back where Apple (and some of it's label partners) were collecting money from iTune sales but not giving the royalties to the appropriate parties and keeping it for themselves?! How is that any different? (that's a rhetorical question) Overall a pretty silly story, since Microsoft isn't increasing the price of the Zune, but their online music catalog is now better because of it.

@will84: "No, actually you are whining about Microsoft setting an example Apple can't afford to follow." Apple makes billions from iPods; they could easily afford it. It's just the idea that the music industry gets paid for something it has nothing to do with, and Microsoft is encouraging that, which means everyone else will be pressured to pay music companies for any music-playing devices as well. I guess CD player manufacturers, because they happen to play CDs, will also have to pay Universal, right? Apparently, you're all for this ridiculous idea. @Waethorn: "I think people are blowing this out of proportion. For an industry that they don't know very much about, they sure are making a lot of opinions for something that's so irrelevent to them." Waethorn, Microsoft employee, weighs in. As usual it's a defense of Microsoft. Meanwhile, more on Microsoft attempting to poison other people's licensing deals: http://www.blackfriarsinc.com/blog/2006/11/microsoft-tries-to-derail-ipod.html

P.S. If Apple wanted to, they could just buy Universal like they almost did in 2003: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2940355.stm Then Microsoft would be paying Apple for every Zune sold. It would be interested to see you guys defend it then!

Now you're just being silly. You want to talk dollars and cents? OK. If MS wanted to they could buy both Apple AND Universal.

*opens iTunes* On my 30GB 5th-gen iPod: I have 3274 songs, 4 TV Shows, 9 Full-Length movies, and 18 podcasts. 427 of the songs are iTunes purchases. The rest are MP3s ripped from actual Audio CDs I keep in plastic bins in my basement for safekeeping. 4 TV Shows were purchased on iTunes. 9 Full-length movies are rips from DVDs I own and ripped thanks to handbrake. It's hard to watch a DVD in the woods when the plastic disc is at home on your shelf, so ripping it is fair use for me. 18 Podcasts - all talk, no copyrighted music in them. Mind you, I'm a 30-something who's set in my ways as far as music and movies go. I hate the current pop music. I like the bands I followed in the 70s and 80s. If I can muster up over 3200 songs, I can only imagine that today's teen- and tween-aged folks, with an undying love of popmusic, probably have three times as much music as I do. Do the math and that gets close to the 10,000 capacity of high-end iPods. Now, how much of that is legitimate? No one can ever know for sure. I'd imagine people have more legitimate digital music files than, say, legit copies of Windows XP and Office.

"Most of the money that goes to the label is used for promoting their artists - the majority of the cost of production." That may be, but it does not excuse the way record companies go about doing business. I've done much research into the big record companies. They're not as accomidating as you may think. Yes, they pour money into promotion, but they also have no problem destroying artists lives while they're at it. Ever wonder where all those REAL popular acts from a decade ago are? Where are bands like the Spin Doctors? I'll tell you where they are: they're working crap jobs while all the royalties go to pay off the silly advances (with intrest) the record comapnies gave them... arrrgh. I could go on and on ... Suggested Reading: The Mansion on the Hill: (this one will give you an idea of what David Geffin is really like) http://www.amazon.com/Mansion-Hill-Springsteen-Head-Collision/dp/0679743774/sr=8-1/qid=1163099861/ref=pd_bbs_s r_1/104-9333392-0901567?ie=UTF8&s=books Hit Men: http://www.amazon.com/Hit-Men-Brokers-Inside-Business/dp/0679730613/sr=1-1/qid=1163099890/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104- 9333392-0901567?ie=UTF8&s=books Both are well researched and very eye opening. Between reading these, and having dealt with company promoters from time to time I can honestly say I will do all I can not to support teh big record companies. lotsa has it right: Artists can do it themselves now. And most of the doityourselfers offer a better prouct and they keep all their own profits.

They're music companies, not charitable institutions. I'm sure, given an opportunity, an artist will be just as ready to dump a sinking record company. The same is the case with sports, movies, etc. Maybe you should also stop watching movies in theaters or on dvds and Monday night football games. And what about the oil cartel? Maybe you should stop driving too? I really don't think MS had any other choice. And I don't blame Universal either. After all, it's business.

And, all said and done, Microsoft deserves credit for supporting some of these "doityourselfers" wihout asking for much in return.

And Preseton, being the average troll, weighs in heavy when it comes to Microsoft stepping on Apple's "little piggys"! Honestly, using a blog opinion as a point of reference is pretty sad. Also, the point about Apple buying Vivendi was a bad example because Vivendi was so mismanaged at the time it wasn't funny. This is the same company that bought up Sierra (the game company) and fired all of the original crew in their head office in Coarsegold, CA, then took their name and discontinued their original game series and introduced all new game series under different genres. Then they got rid of the Sierra name and called themselves VU Games when they realized nobody cared about how they twisted Sierra thusly. Then when they were losing money, sold the original Sierra division back. Nice company. "And most of the doityourselfers offer a better prouct and they keep all their own profits." The problem is they never get rich at it. Who cares if you keep all your profits if you only sell 1000 CD's. When they want to make it big, they need production and marketing behind them. That's when the real bucks start piling in. No artist has big plans of staying small. It is just a job after all. True musicians know when to cut the crap of sticking behind this guise of "art" and know when to start accepting big bucks being thrown their way, otherwise they starve, and end up being washed up. True, some musicians let fame get to their head, but those are the ones that end up getting flushed down the toilet. I like to see new artists, sure, but if they're not gonna go after a recording contract and make a living at it, they die out pretty damn fast and I don't see them again.

"If I can muster up over 3200 songs, I can only imagine that today's teen- and tween-aged folks, with an undying love of popmusic, probably have three times as much music as I do." Undying love doesn't pay for CDs. 10,000 songs @ a going rate of 10tracks/cd is 1,000 CDs. Assuming these are not singles, then it gets worse on price. But assuming they are full albums, averaging the 10 track/cd, and a 'modest' price of 15USD per CD, well you are sitting at 15,000USD. Thats ludicrous, but some would say, "Silly goose, you don't buy all of them at once, you accumulate them over time! And thats what teenagers do! One here, 2 there, 4 on a popular month, etc. They spend that much, but they never notice it." If you bought 3 CD's a month it would take you 27 years to accumulate that collection. Syntactically impossible for a teenager to do. If a 'teen' (broadened to 12-21) were to wish to have 10,000 songs by their 21st birthday, and were given a 2,000 track listing of freebie no-name artist tracks, they would have to buy almost 8 CD's (120USD) a month non-stop rain or shine good music or bad. And thats assuming they have 2,000 freebies, and give them 3 grace 'teen' years. Also takes into account that a 12 year old is going to be burning 120 bucks a month on just CD's (daddy's gonna say no after a while I would assume). Lets walk down the other road. Open Limewire, search 'music'. You'll hit in excess of 25,000 titles. Given a 5mbit DSL/Cable connection, at a going rate of 4.5MB/track, 10,000 tracks would hit the magic number of 45GB. 5mbit translates to 0.625MB/sec churning the math 73728 seconds to download, or 20 days. Twenty days of download time to amass 10,000 tracks of music. Which scenario seems more achievable? Occam's Razor my friends. -- @Pres. doesn't always have to be a fight chap. I doubt your slippery-slope theory, but that don't mean you have to get all angry about it. Behold!, http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35620

"The problem is they never get rich at it. Who cares if you keep all your profits if you only sell 1000 CD's. When they want to make it big, they need production and marketing behind them." The real problem is signing a big lable contract does not mean you are going to get rich either. The big record companies may not be charity organizations, but they are a shade away from being crooks. Always have been, always will be. Remember hearing about Payola? It's been happneing since the 40's and it's still happening to this day. It pops up in the news every few years or so and the record companies find loopholes to make it go away. The RIAA and the companies like to cry about how we're all stealing money from the artists when in fact they do the same thing. Example: new artists, generally, loose any and all rights to their music once they sign. The record execs started holding the copyrights nearly half a century ago when they realised that they could sell the rights to someones music to someone else and the actual artist doesnt see a dime. The Artist lasts for maybe 2 singles, *maybe* for another record - then they die out no one hears from them again while exec who cant even carry a tune in the shower makes millions with Best Of's, Crappy compilations and Soup Commercial jingles. There are also documented cases where execs have refused to release singles unless their name was included in the writing credits (more money for the execs, less or nothing for the actual artist). Sure, they may woo artists with visons of fame and fortune, but for every 1 act that makes it big, at least 100 dissapear. And, in many occasions, the big acts are nothing more than industry creations. You have to understand that peoples lives has been destoyed by the big record companies. Literally destroyed. They coddle and pamper, but when they deam you no longer an asset, the forget you ever existed. Just ask Peter Frampton.

Waethorn (fellow MS employee - just kidding), that is a funny story about Sierra. Don't forget they also dumped Al Lowe, which was probably one of the most original game creators of all time. While we can blame MS all we want, they are not the real problem. We all know it is the record companies and the RIAA. I think we all feel that the artists should be able to make some money, but the way that the RIAA and their ilk goes about it is just all wrong. The DRM in the Zune and iTunes stores hurts the consumers. There really is nothing to argue about here. Note too that Steve Jobs had the advantage of a fully functional market behind him when the record companies wanted more money per song. If that had not been the case, and Apple was in MS's position, they would also be paying various recording companies. While there are many record companies, the total outlay for a device like the iPod or Zune can not equal too much. Only about five of them or so are big names that can wield a big stick. On a $250 dollar device, that would equal $5/unit.

One last thing: Doing it yourlsef can lead to good things - becuase doing it yourself can land you an Indie contract (generally better royalties - even though you may sell less albums - and the indies are kinder with rights) ... and if you can get popular on an indie lable you are in a great position to negotiate terms YOU want when the big lables come sniffing. You have to be smart about it is all. Fame and fortune does not happen overnight. It's somehting that has to be worked for. The big lables would like you to think you dont have to work for it, then they make you pay for it.

Too bad the record companies don't spend as much time making sure that the music released today is decent. It's all about form and zero content these days other than a few innovative new artists like Robert Randolph, Drive by Truckers, Beck, Roger Manning, Jason Faulkner, and a few others. As for Zune, it will sell fine and Microsoft has been busy in offering all kinds of new things like the Live platform, Vista, and the new Office 2007. I am sure Microsoft will be fine. As for the dollar deal? I have to admit it puzzles me if indeed over a song library. Then again, I don't buy online....I like my lovely store bought CD cases....

By the way, the DRM is bogus and yes, I believe it does hurt the consumer. I personally don't subscribe to it no matter what platform I use to rip and burn. Frankly, I do not mind manipualting folder and song file names.

One more thought here on Zune though. If it does well in sales, an awful lot of people might just be rather disappointed if early reviews are reliable. Evidently the wireless feature is only at about 30 feet and you can't access your pc or other wireless items. Songs you share via wireless evidently are only good for three days. Not only that, the Zune cannot be used as an external drive. Note: I do not have one and the information I offer here is just from two early reviews. Thus I can't confirm all this but if true......Zune could be a real dud. As a final note, recently I suggested that Microsoft has been busy with a lot of offerings but what perplexes me is why they don't just stick with their OS and their Office products, their "live" system....and their XBOX system. The foray into the music world is something that seems rather banal and even a bit daft. Then again, maybe it's sordid ego, singular jealousy, and paranoia. By the way and rather incredible if true, one review I read states you cannot use Windows Media Player to load Zune with music. If true.....that is an awfully big boo boo.

The problem with music today is that all the experimentation, creativity, and invention has given way to a rigid platform where artists are bred for commercial and Candy-Coated manufacturing. The music is vapid, un-melodic, cold, and all formula. Part of this problem is technology; part of it studios managers and talent recruiters that have no idea what music is really all about. It has become a business and not much more. Record companies have become so paranoid about piracy that they have ignored true marketing strategy. There was a time when an entire recording was a creative process. Now, it is automated settings and digital editing where literally one lousy take is all a computer wizard needs to churn out another cold sounding digitized recording. Fortunately, we still have some old dogs recording like Joni Mitchell, The Allman Brothers, Todd Rundgren, Pat Metheny, Dwight Yoakam, and a few newer artists like Kathleen Edwards, Roger Manning, Michelle Branch (her Game of Love with Santana was the best single of the year it was released) and others I mentioned in a previous post. Microsoft and Apple both have helped to ruin the gift of sharing music. Music was meant to be shared and frankly, that is how listeners find out about new releases, through sharing, media, and other social forms. Zune will jump right in and help big business further compromise the true idea of music and creating music in general. Once, it was a time of icons; Elvis, The Beatles, Bruce Springsteen to mention a few. Well the days of icons are over other than on your desktop. iPod is also a big part of the problem. Frankly, both Apple and Microsoft would do well to stick with their nibbles and bytes.

Funny how you should mention that they should stick with the XBOX. Before the XBOX was out, all the critics were flaming Microsoft thinking that they couldn't possibly succeed in the console gaming market. Now it's set to be almost on par with Sony, and has already eclipsed Nintendo's laughable forays into the ludicrous. What you mentioned about the Zune is correct, but it's hardly news now. There was a point to it all. As for the statement about Microsoft ruining music, I think that's a bit exaggerated. The Zune's own music sharing feature is the way to increase public education about new artists. By restricting it to the "3x3 rule", they're also playing a part in furthering the careers of said artists by requiring listeners and soon-to-be fans by purchasing music one way or another in order to continue listening to it. Microsoft isn't stupid though. They know that they can bring more customers to Zune Marketplace to purchase stuff by leading them with the music sharing feature. Apple doesn't have the "social thing" yet with the iPod, so it's up to the user to just browse through iTunes or go on word of mouth. In the end, it's a marketing endeavour, but there is still a benefit for the end-user.

Way off topic, but I can't resist. Microsoft Photosynth was released today! Only for IE6/7 though. Amazing software nonetheless. View at: http://labs.live.com/photosynth/blogs/So+Here+It+Is+++.aspx See, Microsoft *can* innovate!

i have an XBOX and love it. A solid product. While my comment on Microsoft ruining music is exaggerated I agree, I still believe both Apple and Microsoft are of no help to the consumers of music and especially not to the artists. Nor is the Zune sharing feature (in my opinion) an educational feature of any kind. In fact, I do not see it as a feature but rather another wavering finger at those consumers it happens to actually distrust. 3 songs? 3 days? Sorry, but that's paranoia any way you cut it. I like the progress on XBOX, "live", although in my experience Vista is a dud. As for music, in my opinion that company hasn't a clue. Finally, while I do think Microsoft is trying to do some good things, in my opinion it might help if they scaled down their scope a bit. Music prowess simply isn't one of their fortes.

OK, I actually played around with this and it *blew me away*! It is absolutely stunning to think that this will eventually be used for *my* photo collections. To everyone here: Load up IE6/7 (I know, it is hard for some of you) and go to the site! I guarantee that you will be absolutely *stunned.* Did I mention that Photosynth is amazing?

"Did I mention that Photosynth is amazing?" It is neat... but what real purpose does it serve? Or am I missing something?

Although the 3D pixel rendering is pretty damn cool!

"It is neat... but what real purpose does it serve?" Another attempt to lock people in to Internet Explorer, of course!

"It is neat... but what real purpose does it serve?" They will extend it to allow people to use their own photo collections. Eventually, Live Labs will come up with a way to tag images on the Internet, and add them to your collection. Clicking on an image will bring you to its website. For instance, say you took pictures of the Eiffel Tower and put it in Photosynth. Photosynth would then add pictures on the Internet, on which you could click to go the the webpage, say a history of the Eiffel tower. *That's* why this is amazing.

lotsamystuff: "Another attempt to lock people in to Internet Explorer, of course!" Bah! Virtual Earth is enough for me...