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."
On Sunday 23 November 2008 09:36:41 Aleem B wrote: [ in a slightly different order ] > > What do you find so alarming about their stance on DRM? First of all, he doesn't say he finds it alarming, he says "Another alternative universe moment". This to me can be at best described as "surprised beyond belief". The reason for this is probably due to the rather extreme lengths that Microsoft appear to have gone to with regard to their DRM system. This is a either a good thing or a bad thing from any given individual's perspective. As a result, given the rather (apparently) extreme lengths gone to, the statement "Microsoft has always preferred DRM-free" is a rather big surprise. It would be akin to hearing Richard Stallman say that he'd always preferred proprietary software - ie completely at odds with observed behaviour. > 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. No. Microsoft are not legally obliged to facilitate copyright through DRM. No one is. They may have chosen to make certain decisions based on economics and based on how they expect markets to change with the aim of increasing their value to their shareholders, since that's the bottom line for a publically traded company, but they had a clear choice. Likewise, other providers, and labels make choices based on certain views of economics that one approach is more suitable at any given point in time, but given you can buy content DRM free these days: * http://www.google.com/search?q=DRM+free+itunes * http://www.google.com/search?q=DRM+free+amazon * http://www.google.com/search?q=DRM+free+EMI ... amongst others, then this makes your other assertions more dubious, unless you can back up your claims. However, this seems pretty recent: * http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10102414-37.html And this seems to rather indicate the opposite of your points. * http://news.google.com/news?q=DRM+free Most arguments to do with DRM really boil down to economics in the end, and the DRM involved only affects the economics involved whilst it remains effective. Even then, it's debateable how effective that affect is. After all, DVDs seem to be doing OK, and one of the more amusing aspects about that is that some people prefer DVD because "it doesn't have any DRM". Michael. -- http://yeoldeclue.com/blog http://www.kamaelia.org/Home - 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/
