And why shouldn't they? They don't make money off DRM'd content but legally they are obliged, not to mention the strong lobby of the RIAA/MPAA has ensured that all major music players in the market faciliate copyright through DRM. If the iPod weren't DRM'd, iTunes wouldn't have any sort of deal with the labels. AAPL doesn't make much on iTunes (but that's slowly changing as its position grows ever more commanding and the RIAA are aware and trying to mitigate this somewhat). FWIW, apple also maintains the same position (despite iPod DRM annoyances) though Jobs has been slightly more forward about this position.
What do you find so alarming about their stance on DRM? -- Aleem On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another alternative universe moment... > http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_says_it_has_always_preferred_DRMfree_content/1227222823 > > "At a Media Center-centric event here Wednesday, Microsoft's new Media > Center marketing manager Mike Seamons, charged with demonstrating the charms > of the Windows 7 version of Media Center, said that "Microsoft has always > preferred DRM-free" content, adding that the company nonetheless understands > the need for protections." > --- > Brian Butterworth > > follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist > web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover > advice, since 2002 > - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
