http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5993125.html

Quote :

"After promising to launch a digital music service for several years, MTV said Tuesday that it is close to releasing an online music mart that will throw it into competition with iTunes and Napster."

More info:

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?home&NewsID=13358

Quote :

"Warner's Cohen said: "With Urge, MTV Networks is again at the forefront of revolutionising where and how our combined audiences across the globe can connect with the music and the artists they love." Van Toffler, MTV Networks Music Group president described Urge as a "psychic concierge", and promised all manner of personalisation, recommendation and music discovery features for users of the Windows-only service."

I hope when they say "forefront of revolutionizing" they mean "doing the same thing companies have been doing for years."

12/14/2005 1:27:42 PM

I'm pretty sure that most people hate MTV nowadays.

12/14/2005 1:41:20 PM

i dont understand how they think another music service will suddenly make me want to pay for music.

Unless they're going to be really really cheap and have no DRM i dont see how they plan to pull market share away from the other services or create new interest.

12/14/2005 3:29:02 PM

Quote :

"Unless they're going to be really really cheap and have no DRM i dont see how they plan to pull market share away from the other services or create new interest."

Looks like they're gonna pull the "flexible pricing" scheme. Basically, the more popular a song is, the more it will cost. $2 for the brand new nelly song, $1 for the crappy old nelly song. And $0.50 for the old Vanilla Ice songs. And a little extra if you want to burn it. And a little more if you want to put it on your portable player.

[Edited on December 14, 2005 at 3:39 PM. Reason : ]

12/14/2005 3:38:55 PM

yeah thats not gonna win me over.

12/14/2005 3:43:56 PM

thats got pump-tential

12/14/2005 4:21:30 PM

Quote :

"Unless they're going to be really really cheap and have no DRM"

Unless they're going to be really really cheap OR have no DRM

In any case, DRM doesn't bother me.

12/15/2005 3:10:24 AM

http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/04/technology/ces_gates/

Quote :

"Bill Gates aims to take over your living room and late Wednesday he unveiled a new music service and new software to do it. Using an appearance with Justin Timberlake, the Microsoft chairman debuted a new music service, Urge, to directly compete with the iTunes music store and interface. Urge launches with over 2 million tracks for purchase or as part of an all-you-can eat subscription, an option the iTunes music store doesn't have. The offering will include exclusive material from MTV, though it will not be compatible with iPods, which are currently the most popular MP3 player."

[Edited on January 5, 2006 at 11:35 AM. Reason : here we go]

1/5/2006 11:35:00 AM

Can i watch stuff/listen to music using an Urge subscription on an xbox 360?

1/5/2006 11:38:03 AM

Wow, great article.

1/5/2006 12:18:29 PM

i only care about it if there's no DRM, and they have stuff I want to hear (ie. not stuff playable on MTV). but knowing microsoft, there's gonna be some kickin' DRM on it.

1/5/2006 12:30:49 PM

Why do people hate DRM? I wouldn't want some broke dudes downloading my songs for free if I were a singer.

1/5/2006 12:31:39 PM

^ Are you a retard? Once you buy the song you should be able to do whatever you want with it and not have some sort of restriction like DRM dictating what you can/can't do with your purchase.

1/5/2006 12:38:43 PM

no. I am not a retard. Why should you be able to make unlimited copies of the song once you pay for it?

As it is, you pay for the license, not the song. You don't own the song. You own the license to play it in a non-commercial manner. That license does not authorize you to make copies. DRM is perfectly legal and fine.

1/5/2006 12:40:31 PM

there are too many situations where DRM has caused a legally-purchased piece of code not to function as intended, promised, or allowed under fair use.

it's the same concept as buying a CD that just doesn't work in a PC CD drive, or certain car head units. in that case, it's the fault of not having a sufficient standard for the CD audio format, but DRM is basically a software equivalent of that in many ways. there's no standard for DRM which causes it to screw up when played with certain systems or in certain ways; it's more of a hassle than it's worth. it can also have privacy ramifications if not implemented carefully.

1/5/2006 12:40:41 PM

Windows Media DRM is pretty standard.

1/5/2006 12:41:31 PM

Hi my name is Ultra and when I sell a license to you to listen to my music I don't want you to abuse that license, k?

1/5/2006 12:42:04 PM

DRM is not just Windows Media DRM. There are other kinds present from all kinds of other sources.

1/5/2006 12:43:15 PM

My name is Ultra and I don't agree with piracy.

All music subscription is Windows media as far as subscription music goes. iTunes sucks anyway.

[Edited on January 5, 2006 at 12:43 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2006 12:43:19 PM

i agree, but it is music subscription whether you like it or not. so is Rhapsody. so is Napster. so is Wal-Mart's music service.

1/5/2006 12:47:54 PM

I don't think the $10 or so per month is a hefty amount to be able to legally play 2 million+ songs wherever you want.

Heck, I pay $12 a month just for satellite radio.

1/5/2006 12:48:52 PM

hi, i'm Dodging The Question, have we met?

1/5/2006 12:50:36 PM

You didn't pose any question as far as I can see.

You said DRM is bad. I said DRM is just an enforcement of the warnings you see on a CD jewel case.

You said Napster is subscription music. I said that's a perfectly viable model for making legal content available for cheap.

1/5/2006 12:52:10 PM

naw, you asked why people hate DRM. i explained why i don't like it. end of topic?

1/5/2006 12:55:55 PM

Except that in this case and situation, DRM works very well. Giving me the example of some Sony CD crap is a poor example. It isn't technically DRM. It is much more about restrictions rather than management.

There is no free lunch.

1/5/2006 12:57:30 PM

except that DRM precludes situations that fall under fair use if the content was a tape or CD. i just don't see any compelling argument for why fair use should be more limiting when the content is extended into a virtual medium. i agree with you that DRM in theory works fine if people actually read the license they're agreeing to when they purchase songs on the internet, but i think that license interferes with traditional fair use (legal to do this of course, but i don't think it's a good business practice), and that it's not always implemented correctly.

1/5/2006 1:01:49 PM

can you give me specific examples with Rhapsody, Napster, or any other Windows media based service?

1/5/2006 1:04:29 PM

Those services are subscription and not single pay services.

Subscription services are fine if they use DRM b/c that just enforces the subscription style playback.


What we're talking about is buying a a CD or a single track and not having it work in all devices or not having the freedom to put it in whatever media format we want.

Its also not about the actual technology involved. WMA DRM works fine. The problem is the restrictions put in place by the content owner, not the actual DRM tech itself.

1/5/2006 1:09:47 PM

Again, what Sony did wasn't DRM.

1/5/2006 1:11:46 PM

yes it was.

1/5/2006 1:12:41 PM

It was a root kit meant to restrict not manage.

cmon man.

1/5/2006 1:14:38 PM

i don't use any subscription services (i still buy antiquated CDs), so i haven't personally used the DRM on rhapsody or napster. i'm not sure if the DRM enforces their terms of service, but it looks like if you use napster, you can only copy a song onto 2 portable devices. how many mp3 players have some people gone through since they were invented? i'm sure there are a fair amount of early adopters who have had a 64/128MB player, several generations of Ipods or Creative mp3 players, etc. Plus a scenario where an mp3 gets dropped, broken, and replaced, or otherwise replaced under warranty. If I had a small player for exercising and a larger player for trips or something, then I would want to be able to put the song on both players. If one of them has been replaced, or if I've ever owned another player before, I might be out of luck.

1/5/2006 1:15:01 PM

can restricting something not be part of managing it?

1/5/2006 1:15:43 PM

If your MP3 player breaks you can redownload content on the newer player.

as far as I know, Rhapsody and Yahoo! do not restrict the number of portable players.

Sony is an altogether different and bad example because they have publically apologized for their wrongdoings.

1/5/2006 1:17:34 PM

i've got a sony CD that will not play on my PC in any form or fashion because it's afraid i'll try to make mp3's of it. this is not the root kit, it's a cd from before all that with a copy protection scheme they used in europe. it seems like they're saying i don't digitally have certain rights.

1/5/2006 1:21:09 PM

Please don't talk about Sony in a thread on DRM.

1/5/2006 1:21:49 PM

why, because it's relevant?

1/5/2006 1:23:05 PM

DRM is any means to provide restriction on the use of content.

In sony's case their DRM software was a root kit.


The problem is really the liscence for the content, not the DRM. The DRM just enforces the liscence.


And im not going to pay to liscence a song that will only play on X player Y number of times.

1/5/2006 1:23:24 PM

Quote :

" And a little extra if you want to burn it"

fuck that noise

Quote :

"though it will not be compatible with iPods, which are currently the most popular MP3 player"

hi, i'm bill gates
i used to know shit
or at least how to look like i know shit

1/5/2006 1:23:36 PM

it wont work with ipods because Apple wont open their DRM technology.

So dont blame Microsoft.

1/5/2006 1:24:34 PM

It's not relevant. Sony is stupid. Their entire business strategy is stupid. That's another discussion, though.


DRM does not restrict anything. If you buy a song's license through Rhapsody you can burn it on a CD unlimited times but you cannot just email the file to your buddy.

I don't see any problems.

1/5/2006 1:27:41 PM

Allow playback on PC Yes
Content viewable until Unlimited
Allow burning to CD Yes
Allow transfer to non-secure device No
Allow transfer to secure device Yes


This is what my Rhapsody download says. I paid 99 cents for it.

1/5/2006 1:38:37 PM