Microsoft's DRM vision [LWN.net]

Microsoft's DRM vision

Posted Aug 2, 2005 1:20 UTC (Tue) by darthmdh (guest, #8032)
Parent article: Microsoft's DRM vision

While I agree that ramming stupidity down people's throats will fail, Microsoft have already gone down that path and got that treatment they deserved - remember how they tried to bring in software subscription where you'd pay $1000 or more for Office, and next year have to pay it again, ad nauseum.

That's why they are introducing the exact same system, but subtly. First, they make legal precedent that applications that run on their operating system are "integral" to its operation - using something innoculous as a web browser. So next time, when its an application that provides DRM and cripples the functionality of the system, they can call back on that precedent to say "we can't remove it" when the proverbial fit hits the shan. Next, they aquire services that have traditionally relied on a subscription model such as anti-virus and anti-spyware programs. They can then claim it makes good business sense to shift their other software to this model for any number of reasons you can think of - streamlining their business practice, it cuts costs, easier to train staff in a single sales process, whatever. Since the inception of Windows NT they have had security levels higher than Administrator, effectively taking control out of the hands of the human owner/operator. They could potentially argue that this is an accepted industry practice that has gone on for over a decade with little disagreement.

Also, don't forget that their illegal monopoly worldwide means that a US company has ultimate control of the majority of computer systems on the planet - something their government isn't about to take away given the huge military/strategic advantage that is to them. It's no surprise why they were not punished like every other company that has been found guilty of breaking the same law(s).

(Log in to post comments)

DRM - why play their game?

Posted Aug 2, 2005 3:01 UTC (Tue) by leews (guest, #4690) [Link]

Folks,

I believe we are looking at the problem in the wrong way. Look at the legislation that has been commandeered to sustain such an ecosystem, and follow the money. In almost all cases, it's not the original content creator, but the distribution channel middleman. As comsumers, if we don't like it, we should take our money elsewhere.

My buying/renting of traditional music/video has dropped to almost NIL.
I am now listening to (and paying for) songs from sites such as http://www.magnatunes.com, where 50% of the revenue goes to the artiste and there is no lock-in contract.

What's the difference? The Creative Commons Licence. Is it perfect? Probably not. However, it's one of the ways to keep things sane, and empowers the author, and yet allows for true "fair-use" and the production of "derivatives" without presuming everyone a criminal. Artistes/authors should be encouraged to publish under such a licence by the support we give them. The idea is that if there is no inherent upstream "need", then the DRM schemes are moot.

It is almost like moving to a new country with different laws to escape governmental or religious domination, but I won't elaborate on that analogy here.

Regards,
WS