Michael, 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.
>From the end consumer it's never good. From a company's perspective, as I have repeatedly pointed out, there's no money to be made through music sales. It's a break-even distribution channel for the most part as Oppenheimer repeatedly points out during AAPL earnings. > 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. > Years back, Apple has dominated the market with the iPod. Prior to Zune, Microsoft was licensing it's Plays for Sure technology and licensing it to third parties. Third party vendors didn't have much choice because Microsoft provided them a platform to unite against AAPL--they figured they'd differentiate on the hardware and the music would be made available through Microsoft's channels and give them a chance against Apple (which had already proven that the vertical model was the best). This was not an extremem measure. It was the only way to remain competitive. Apple along with the rest of the market already had (and still have) some riduclous DRM restrictions. I don't see how Microsoft's position was any more extreme. Microsoft was coming up with a competitive platform and it is _simply not possible_ to be competitive by offering a DRM free player. Sad as that may be but the RIAA defends its turf very aggresively. Let's not forget the university students who were taken to court for filesharing and made examples of. Making Microsoft a scapegoat is to ignore all the other vendors. LG, Sony, Philips, YouTube, Samsung, Creative, Apple, and whoever deals with copyright content goes down the DRM route--not only that but that's the route they all started upon, from beginning to end. So really, there isn't much choice. If you can make money off a linux based media player which supports open standards, kudos to you. But you won't get very far. There are no existence proofs. 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. It's not possible to be competitive with a DRM-less player. You can't legally download JayZ or Pink Floyd or whatever mainstream channels/stations are airing. DRM free is the edge case, not the mainstream and as such it is not a viable economic alternative. The links you provide for DRM free content are all on the edge... it doesn't mean all that much until you can point me to a succesful DRM free hardware device. 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". > DVDs are not DRM free. DVD players have region codes (movies and games alike). DVDs are not easy to copy (the litmus test is if any of your aunts or uncles can do it). Also, no one I know has a DVD player with a copier sitting in their lounge like it used to be with the VHS. User's don't choose DVDs out of preference, DVDs are the only viable option they've got if they want to watch movies. If things go at the same pace, years blue-ray will also go down the route of planned obsolence. - Aleem
