Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft to Become Mobile DRM Standard?

An anonymous reader writes "It seems most of the media has missed the significance of Microsoft's recent partnership with DoCoMo to put Windows Media DRM on i-mode handsets. If all the i-mode players adopt Windows DRM, that gives Microsoft access to a significant chunk of the mobile market. Couple this with the more recent MTV Urge announcement and you've got Microsoft set to own the DRM space - at least on mobile devices - by stealth. Telecoms.com has a take on the situation, but also reveals that the GSM Association may be on the verge of recommending Windows mobile DRM to all its members. Puts the French copyright and DRM legislation in a whole new perspective - interoperability issues can be solved by removing the competition."

179 comments

  1. ACK! by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft, DRM and Standard in the same sentence!

    Dude, be careful with your words, I almost had a heart attack...

    1. Re:ACK! by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

      A nearby sentence also contained "MTV." I have to go stick pencils in my eyes, now. Bye-bye.

    2. Re:ACK! by Ckwop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Microsoft, DRM and Standard in the same sentence!

      Dude, be careful with your words, I almost had a heart attack...

      Ahh yes, Microsoft must love this. This is the one standard where breaking interoperability is a feature rather than a bug!

      Simon

    3. Re:ACK! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Yeah...but, a confusing article....took reading into the article to find out this was for a mobile 'what'. Mobile phone? Mobile music player.....etc. Are that many people really using their phones for music? iPod isn't good enough?

      Also, what the hell is i-mode? Never heard of it and never saw a good definition of it.

      Lastly, it had a blurb about MS's wmv format being the most popular format people used for music.....have they never heard of mp3?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:ACK! by generic-man · · Score: 1

      i-mode is a wireless data standard created by NTT DoCoMo originally for the Japanese market but later sold elsewhere. It's not really compatible with any other standards to the point where when I was in Japan in 2002, any company had five or six web site addresses, most of which were for i-mode or other incompatible data services.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    5. Re:ACK! by glesga_kiss · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The sad thing is, you could say the exact same things about the DRM in the iPod:
      "It seems most of the media has missed the significance of Apple Music's recent partnership with Apples hardware division to put Fairplay on iPods. If all the iPod players adopt Fairplay, that gives Apple access to a significant chunk of the portable player market. Couple this with the more recent insert any iTunes promo here announcement and you've got Apple set to own the DRM space - at least on portable players - by stealth."

      And this has come to pass. Apple good, Microsoft bad. Linux better! Nice and easy to remember I suppose.

      And a word on the M$ DRM...don't panic. M$ have millions of mobile devices out there already on three separate OS platforms; Windows Mobile 2002/2003, and Windows Mobile 5. Each of these operating systems ships with Windows Media Player as standard, and can play wma/wmv files. HOWEVER, and this is a BIG however; it doesn't work with the Windows Media DRM. Not even in the slightest. If it has DRM of any form it won't play. Anyone marketing WMA media for mobile devices is targeting a tiny marketplace. And they aren't all that popular as a platform anyway, compared to other popular phone product lines. This future DRM-ed device is in a market that is a subset of a subset.

      So, I wouldn't worry about MS owning the mobile media space any time soon.

    6. Re:ACK! by aplusjimages · · Score: 1

      Lastly, it had a blurb about MS's wmv format being the most popular format people used for music.....have they never heard of mp3? Everyone's heard of MP3, but wmv and wma is smaller and sound & look great. WMP is a product that M$ got right.

      --
      Can I bum a sig?
    7. Re:ACK! by Phillup · · Score: 1

      Why is it that in your "alternate" scenario the only players with Fairplay are iPods?

      Yet in the MS scenario it is all the players from other (non-MS) companies?

      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
    8. Re:ACK! by Anders · · Score: 1

      This future DRM-ed device is in a market that is a subset of a subset.

      So Nokia is a tiny provider of mobile devices?

    9. Re:ACK! by Desco · · Score: 1

      "WMP is a product that M$ got right."

      No.

    10. Re:ACK! by lengau · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sorry (not really), but I disagree. MP3 is the MOST POPULAR (what the GPP was talking about). While I agree that WMA is better (smaller and sounds better) than MP3 at the same bitrate (the same going for WMV vs. MPEG), I don't think that they are near the best. AAC and Quicktime video are, IMHO, better. At the same time, I'm most likely to use Vorbis and (Theora|XviD) codecs with (Ogg|Matroska|MXF|etc.) packaging because of a personal bias for (Free|Open Source) Software.

      Anyway, going back to a response to you, Windows Media Player's current iteration is TERRIBLE from a GUI perspective. If I were forced to use WMP, I would use the old GUI through (I believe, I don't have a Windows box around to check right now) wmplayer2.exe. Also, have you ever tried to code something around DirectShow? NOT very pretty.

      --
      I really wanted to change my sig to something witty, but all I could come up with is this.
    11. Re:ACK! by l33t+gambler · · Score: 0

      So Nokia is a tiny provider of mobile devices?

      Don't worry, Microsoft is going to take over the mobile platform with Windows Mobile. PocketPC bye-bye.

      just look at him
      http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41131000/jpg /_41131677_gates_mob203afp.jpg
      he got that thing in his eyes again

      --
      Teasing the nobles, and rightfully so!
    12. Re:ACK! by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1

      I don't get your point. What does Nokia have to do with the number of Windows phones out there, other than being a competitor? You are making my point for me.

    13. Re:ACK! by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Why is it that in your "alternate" scenario the only players with Fairplay are iPods? Yet in the MS scenario it is all the players from other (non-MS) companies?

      Because MS don't make their own devices and Apple do. Apple point blank refuse to license Fairplay for third party devices, in fact I think they have been sued in some places over this stance. That's the way it is. Will I get shot down for pointing out that the sky is blue next? ;-)

    14. Re:ACK! by Anders · · Score: 1

      Read the link to learn that Nokia will ship WM DRM.

  2. A _standard_ for DRM?! by Bromskloss · · Score: 5, Funny

    Heh, looks kinda funny to see "standard DRM". While standard is all about being open, fair and compatible with others, DRM makes me think more about hiding in the dark, afraid of the light, keeping ones dirty secrets and trying to suppress the breathing of others. Doesn't come together.

    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
    1. Re:A _standard_ for DRM?! by Tx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While standard is all about being open, fair and compatible with others

      Well, in reality it's just about the last of those three. But hey, one out of three aint bad ;)

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    2. Re:A _standard_ for DRM?! by Maset · · Score: 1

      Where does a standard propriety?

    3. Re:A _standard_ for DRM?! by Maset · · Score: 1

      hmmm 'lessthan|greaterthan' symbol doesn't come up.

      Where does a standard not equal proprietary?

    4. Re:A _standard_ for DRM?! by Tx · · Score: 1

      hmmm 'lessthan|greaterthan' symbol doesn't come up.

      What? You mean the < and > sybols? You must be doing something wrong man ;)

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    5. Re:A _standard_ for DRM?! by Maset · · Score: 1

      But when you juxtapose them slashcode must construe them as HTML

    6. Re:A _standard_ for DRM?! by LordOfTheNoobs · · Score: 1

      Type the HTML entities :: &gt; > :: &lt; < :: &amp; & :: etc

      --
      They're there affecting their effect.
    7. Re:A _standard_ for DRM?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like <>?

  3. Nope. No MTV. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    MTV doesn't even play music. I don't expect them to sell music. MTV is a pointless marketing creation designed to push an image onto a line of mediocre products purchased willingly by an unsuspecting public with way too much money and zero common sense.

    That's why I'm sticking with Apple.

    1. Re:Nope. No MTV. by MrHeartbreak · · Score: 0

      Apple? iTMS? 128Kb/s? Thanks, I'll wait.

      --
      Don't drag me into your petty squabbles.
    2. Re:Nope. No MTV. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      MTV is a pointless marketing creation designed to push an image onto a line of mediocre products purchased willingly by an unsuspecting public with way too much money and zero common sense.

      That's why I'm sticking with Apple.


      You know you can replace MTV with Apple in the first paragraph and it still makes sense...

    3. Re:Nope. No MTV. by MooUK · · Score: 1, Funny

      Damnit, I spent my last mod point this morning. You need a funny.

    4. Re:Nope. No MTV. by Moqui · · Score: 1

      Good point, but I will back up Apple because I have become acustom to iTMS and my iPod. With this new MTV venture, they have no track record to convince me to move formats. My guess is that I am not the only one that feels this way.

    5. Re:Nope. No MTV. by The+Lerneaen+Hydra · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what's funnier, that parent should be modded +4, Funny, or that parent was modded interesting.

    6. Re:Nope. No MTV. by creepynut · · Score: 1

      Funny or not, it's true.

    7. Re:Nope. No MTV. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sense some sarcasm in that post. If not meant to be it's pretty funny that it can be understood that way.

    8. Re:Nope. No MTV. by flyweight_of_fury · · Score: 1

      It isn't so much MTV as it is its communication powerhouse parent Viacom... Big V + M$ = Oh noes! Look out Apple!

    9. Re:Nope. No MTV. by owlnation · · Score: 1
      MTV doesn't even play music. I don't expect them to sell music. MTV is a pointless marketing creation designed to push an image onto a line of mediocre products purchased willingly by an unsuspecting public with way too much money and zero common sense.


      I have to say that is is one of the most refreshingly accurate descriptions of MTV I've yet come across.

    10. Re:Nope. No MTV. by BecomingLumberg · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the new M:HD? Its their new high def channel, and actually has lots of music, mainly entire concerts. Their programming is a bit limited right now, but they have some pretty good acts on there.

      --
      If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.-TJ
    11. Re:Nope. No MTV. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! I feel the same way... About Apple!

      Anyhoo, your opinion doesn't matter when millions of tweens say otherwise.

    12. Re:Nope. No MTV. by amliebsch · · Score: 1
      Big V + M$ =

      VMS! Everything old is new again!

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    13. Re:Nope. No MTV. by The+Lerneaen+Hydra · · Score: 1

      The part about MTV is true, whereas the part about apple was much more in jest.

    14. Re:Nope. No MTV. by Generic+Guy · · Score: 1
      Have you seen the new M:HD? Its their new high def channel, and actually has lots of music, mainly entire concerts. Their programming is a bit limited right now, but they have some pretty good acts on there.

      Don't worry, I'm sure as soon as their studios get more HD cameras they'll buff out that limited programming schedule with plenty of HD:Real World, HD: True Life, and whole varieties of HD college-age bimbo game shows.

      --
      { - Generic Guy - }
    15. Re:Nope. No MTV. by aplusjimages · · Score: 1

      Remember when the M use to stand for music instead of Moronic.

      --
      Can I bum a sig?
    16. Re:Nope. No MTV. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      but they have some pretty good acts on there.

      Good acts? When I look for good music, I want to hear musicians, not actors. "Act" means something like Britney Spears, not true music.

    17. Re:Nope. No MTV. by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 1

      So what note was Jimi Hendrix trying to play when he lit his guitar on fire?

    18. Re:Nope. No MTV. by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      You (and TFA) misspelled "empty-v".

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    19. Re:Nope. No MTV. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least he *could* play it before setting fire to it.

  4. Neither M$ nor *AA get it . . . by mmell · · Score: 0

    DRM is dead. Unfettered formats exist and are in widespread use. Try as they might, they can't unring the bell.

    1. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it . . . by PFI_Optix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      DRM is far from dead. Right now, they're trying to make it harder to create, distribute, and find pirated material implementing those unfettered formats. What they need to be doing is making DRM-enabled content affordable, accessible, and useable.

      What the industry needs is good, common-sense DRM. Today's DRM doesn't allow for things going public domain. It's not flexible enough to allow users to do what they want (and is legal) with what they paid for. They are presently erring on the side of profit...that's not going to work with consumers long-term.

      --
      120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
    2. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it . . . by DragonWriter · · Score: 3, Insightful
      DRM is dead. Unfettered formats exist and are in widespread use. Try as they might, they can't unring the bell.
      Maybe so, in the long run, though I'm not as optimistic as you are. In the short-run, the people who make lots of money controlling distribution of content like DRM, and will do everything they can to get it adopted in order to continue to profit from that control, and lots of people will go along because it will be the easiest way to get access to the most popular media content.
    3. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it . . . by dpilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If I had pile$ of money, it seems to me that there's a Constitutional case here that could play before the Supremes.

      Regardless of any specific time limit, be it "eternity - 1 day," the Constitution says that patents and copyrights last a limited time. DRM incorporates NO expiration mechanism, whatsoever. The reason for wanting DRM is that "bits last forever". If so, then those bits will outlast their copyright. The DRM needs to expire, and currently doesn't.

      Therefore, current DRM is unconstitutional.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    4. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it . . . by JWW · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe so, in the long run, though I'm not as optimistic as you are. In the short-run, the people who make lots of money controlling distribution of content like DRM, and will do everything they can to get it adopted in order to continue to profit from that control, and lots of people will go along because it will be the easiest way to get access to the most popular media content.

      And as they try and invent this future they miss out on the massive amount of money they could make by just giving up on DRM and creating a fair market for digital music. Their insistance to DRM will ensure that illegal copies survive. They have to make illegal downloading not worth it in comparison and the wasy to do that is to make legal downloading easier, not harder (read DRM enbumbered up the wazoo).

    5. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it . . . by bheer · · Score: 1

      Hmm, that's actually a good idea. I wonder if they'll try to weasel out of it by saying you can try reverse-engineering it when its copyright expires?

    6. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it . . . by dpilot · · Score: 1

      In that case, the DMCA would need a clause allowing reverse engineering of DRM on expired works. Obvious flaw - since the DRM hasn't changed, you've just reverse-engineered the DRM on non-expired works, as well. Its just plain simple, to be consistent with the Constitution of the United States, DRM needs a copyright expiration mechanism.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    7. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it . . . by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      That's a loser of a case, because there's nothing in the Constitution or any law I know of that makes it illegal to encumber public domain materials. You just can't stop anyone else from unencumbering them.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    8. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Bullshit. DRM is based on encryption. It is therefore limited by how long it would take to brute-force the encryption key. It is therefore, by definition, time limited and not eternal. The DRM on DVDs is worthless because the effective number of bits in the key was brought down to the point where it can now be brute-forced in a reasonable amount of time. Therefore, movies are now traded on the Internet due the DRM scheme on DVDs becoming effectively obsolete.

      DRM isn't eternal. It lasts until computers become powerful enough to be capable of brute-forcing it. Your argument holds no water.

    9. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it . . . by urbaneassault · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It may hold no water on technical details, but it certainly holds water if the mere act of unencrypting DRM is illegal, which I think is the point the grandparent was trying to make...

    10. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it . . . by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 1

      100% CORRECT.

      Arguing that DRM is constitutional because you *could* break it is like saying illegal wiretaps are fine so long as you have the ability to bypass the NSA.

    11. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it . . . by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 1

      but if the algorithm is secret, and disallowed from being reverse engineered (DMCA), then brute force guessing of algorithms and keys could take an "long" time.

      The argument that the public can reverse engineer and decrypt the media in 120 years places an obvious amount of undue burdon on the public.

    12. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it . . . by g2devi · · Score: 1

      > What the industry needs is good, common-sense DRM. Today's
      > DRM doesn't allow for things going public domain. It's not
      > flexible enough to allow users to do what they want (and is
      > legal) with what they paid for. They are presently erring on
      > the side of profit...that's not going to work with consumers long-term

      You're making a few critical assumptions. You're assuming that the music companies:
      * want to let go of cash cows through expiration
      * want to allow others to use their work (even excepts) without paying royalties
      * want to allow competitors to use their work (even excepts) without paying royalties
      * want to forgo profits that they could get by forcing you to pay for the same song over and over again (e.g. replacements, new formats, etc)

      You're also assuming that it's technically possible to:
      * Allow for DRM-free fair use excepts without allowing for these excepts to be recombined to create a DRM-free copy
      * ALlow device portability without also allowing copying.
      * Allow mixing without opening up the format.
      * Allow for expiration to happen without having DRM fall apart completely.

      Before the entertainment conceeds on any of the nontechnical issues, they'd offer the following
      * Promise to release their works in a DRM-free format after copyright expires (Honest! You can believe us!)
      * Provide liberal licensing for people who want to make derivative works
      * Provide a service that allows you to purchase DRM-encumbered fair use clips (At a low low price)
      * Give you the ability to copy the songs a limitted number of times (there's no way you'd ever upgrade your machine more than twice anyway)

      None of these options seem very satisfying, so it's best to just avoid any DRM encumbered entertainment.

    13. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it . . . by ad0gg · · Score: 1

      1 billion itunes(fairplay) songs sold kinda proves its not dead.

      --

      Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    14. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite. IANAL, TINLA...

      You are only guilty of breaking the law (at least under the DMCA) when you circumvent DRM for the purposes of gaining unauthorized access to *copyrighted* material.

      Hypothetically, I could give you a DRM'd copy of Sun Tzu's "Art of War" - no longer in copyright. Because the material the DRM is protected is not copyrighted, it is not a crime under the DMCA to circumvent the DRM (because you can circumvent DRM for the purposes of gaining access to UNcopyrighted material).

      Provided copyright expires, and the laws regarding circumvention of DRM do not change, the DRM is a nuisance, but at some point breaking the DRM is not illegal, because the copyright on the material it protects lapses - as it is no longer preventing you from accessing copyrighted material, you may then break it with impunity.

    15. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it . . . by dpilot · · Score: 1

      On your first clause, you've got me.
      On your second clause, you've run smack into the limitations of the DMCA. As others in the other fork of this thread have said, the issue isn't technical, it's legal. With time and technological advance, we can unencumber any DRM - but the law prevents us from doing so. So this is a law that is counter to the spirit of the Constitution.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    16. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it . . . by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 1

      The constitutional purpose of allowing copyright monopolies was to "promote science and art". Obviously there is little advancement if the end result even after the hundred(s?) year copyright is a pile of bits in an unknown format.

    17. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it . . . by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      I don't think the DMCA can be used to enforce restrictions on public domain content. The very first sentence of the anti-circumvention statute reads, "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" (emphasis added). "Title" refers to 17 USC, "COPYRIGHTS." So presumably the DMCA does not cover circumvention of a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work that is non protected under copyright, e.g., in the public domain.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    18. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it . . . by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      They are presently erring on the side of profit..
      Er, no. They are erring on the side of reducing profit. Using DRM is always less profitable than not using DRM. You have to pay for the snakeoil (which isn't much, but it's something), while simultaneously getting less revenue since fewer people are able to be your customer.
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    19. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it . . . by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Again, the problem is that the DRM will/may be widely used. So you have 2 files, one expired and one current, both on your computer, though presumably in different directories, but they happen to use the same DRM scheme. In another directory you have your cracking tools to unencumber the expired file.

      I'm going to guess that your going to have an awfully tough time asserting that you're ONLY cracking the expired file(s), and not the current file(s). I don't count much on "innocent until proven guilty," here. You have circumvention tools, you have protected files, even though you can assert that those are not the files you're circumventing. The ??AA has more lawyers than you.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    20. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it . . . by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1
      I don't think the DMCA can be used to enforce restrictions on public domain content. The very first sentence of the anti-circumvention statute reads, "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" (emphasis added). "Title" refers to 17 USC, "COPYRIGHTS." So presumably the DMCA does not cover circumvention of a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work that is non protected under copyright, e.g., in the public domain.

      Actually, so long as even one work still under copyright is "effectively protected" by a given technological measure, it would remain illegal to circumvent that measure -- even to access something in the public domain. If this were not the case, then it would be trivial to get around the restrictions on i.e. DeCSS -- just take something in the public domain and encode it with CSS. Anyone working on or distributing DeCSS would then have the excuse that they needed it to access the public-domain media.

      Of course, the side-effect of this is that the MPAA has only to release one copyrightable, CSS-encoded DVD every 50 years or so to keep the DeCSS restrictions in perpetuity.

      Disclaimer: IANAL

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    21. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it . . . by DragonWriter · · Score: 1
      And as they try and invent this future they miss out on the massive amount of money they could make by just giving up on DRM and creating a fair market for digital music.
      Creating a "fair market" for digital content (and DRM goes far beyond music) would not make any more money for the people who extract lots of money from the fact that the market is not "fair" in the sense you seem to be using it. It might make more money for other people, and be better for society as a whole, but that's not something they care about.
      Their insistance to DRM will ensure that illegal copies survive. Human nature does that. Illegal copies existed long before DRM, and will exist whether or not DRM exists, so long as there is any legal restriction on copying. No law is perfectly followed. They don't really care if "illegal copies survive", they care about maximizing their own profits.
      They have to make illegal downloading not worth it in comparison and the wasy to do that is to make legal downloading easier, not harder (read DRM enbumbered up the wazoo).
      Well, sure. If they wanted to minimize illegal downloads as an end unto itself, that would make sense. They'd simply make all downloads legal without restriction and illegal downloading would be a contadiction in terms. They don't want to minimize illegal downloading, except insofar as that serves as an instrumental means to maximize profits.
    22. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it . . . by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      1. Janus DRM is renewable, that is, it can be upgraded "in place" with new forms of encryption and protection
      2. The time taken to brute force any reasonable encryption system is so large that it would take Alien Technology (tm) to find the key within, say, the lifetime of the solar system.
      3. Public domain expiration could be solved using a key escrow system so this is hardly a killer blow against DRM. Better, use a rolling key algorithm such that once protected even changes in the law can't be retro-actively applied to previously protected content so solving the "disney problem".
      4. Final, unrelated point, if there's got to be a mobile DRM standard, I'd much prefer Janus over FairPlay, as Janus does have the minor advantage of being "open" in the sense of anybody can protect things with it and anybody can play things back protected with it (subject to obtaining a license from MS). FairPlay unfairly joins iTunes, the iPod and their music store together for no valid market reason, whereas Janus does at least give you a choice of music store and mobile device.
  5. Hate to say it by Blinocac200sx · · Score: 2

    but I think it'll be a good thing. Mostly because I'd like to see some kind of set standard, so I can listen to my music from any service on any player. Thats not too much to ask, right?

    1. Re:Hate to say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      ... and I think Macs and Linux should be outlawed because I want be able to run my apps from any software provider on any computer. That's not too much to ask, right?

      Oh yeah, sun workstations, too. I never could run those damn solaris binaries...

    2. Re:Hate to say it by Blinocac200sx · · Score: 0

      Thats really a very poor analogy.

    3. Re:Hate to say it by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Sure it would be a good thing to have a standard. The problem is that "DRM standard" is an oxymoron. To be a standard, it has to be possible for anyone to implement an encoder or player. But that means it will be possible for anyone to crack it. Thus, one of the requirements for standardized DRM is that the DRM part not actually be effective. ;-)

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  6. Oh no! by Pichu0102 · · Score: 1

    Microsoft will gain control over the market of 5 people that like DRM!
    Quick, someone sue them for monopolisic practices!

    Does Microsoft NOT know they should be attempting to distance themselves from DRM?

    1. Re:Oh no! by macpeep · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the success of the iTunes Music Store has shown that people don't care too much about DRM as long as it is transparent enough. Look at what URGE will offer. 9.95 for unlimited music. Anything you want. For those not willing to break the law to pirate music, or too lazy to do so, or both (this third category includes me) this is an awesome deal. For just 10 bucks a month, it's as if my music collection was essentially infinite. I don't care if I don't "own" the music. Why should I? For movies, it makes even more sense (because the replay value is much lower than for music) to have some sort of subscription-type system so that you just pay a flat fee per month and have unlimited access to unlimited movies. But to have such systems (either music or movies) be viable, it has to be protected so that you can't just have one person be a subscriber and then that person can copy the stuff to the whole world. That's just a fact of life. Because people can't be trusted NOT to copy, there has to be some system to prevent it. Or at least prevent it for the "casual user" that won't go jump hoops to crack it. I think it was Steve Jobs who said "to keep the honest people honest".

      The future will have DRM in the main-stream whether you like it or not. Of course you can always choose to get your media through some other channels, but if you think that "5 people" (obviously you didn't mean it literally) will be using DRM at the end of 2006, then you are seriously mistaken.

      Peppe

    2. Re:Oh no! by geoffspear · · Score: 1
      And those 5 people have each spent millions of dollars buying songs from iTunes, presumably also buying the not-widely-known 500GB iPod Macro?

      The number of people who care enough about DRM to boycott it is far closer to 5 than the number of people who are willing to buy DRMed content is.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    3. Re:Oh no! by FellowConspirator · · Score: 1

      There's an ever increasing number of people that won't purchase or use Microsoft products of their own volition. If the average consumer won't buy your product, market it to an industry infatuated with itself (the recording and movie industries) who is already making money despite their contempt for their clientele.

      Personally, I think it's a brilliant strategy on the part of Microsoft. They've spent billions on developing an underwhelming polished turd of an OS (VISTA) that they may never see a profit on, but they spend pennies on a DRM scheme and sell it at a zillion-fold mark-up to an industry richer than Croesus that couldn't tell DRM from a hole in the ground (much less deduce that it's a waste of time and money that cuts into their net profit).

      Go-go gadget marketing!

    4. Re:Oh no! by geggo98 · · Score: 1
      The future will have DRM in the main-stream whether you like it or not.

      You might be right. But it's not necessary to have a technical solution. A kind of "DRM light" might be the solution, using watermarking and legal enforcement (e.g. LWDRM). It won't be absolutely secure, but perhaps good enough. So you could have both, open formats and most people paying for their content. Of course to make this work, fair pricing is needed --- people will rob the content providers, when the providers try to rob the people.

  7. rohypnol by towsonu2003 · · Score: 2, Funny

    so this is how Microsoft flirts with open source :)

  8. This sounds like their old haibts. by mikesd81 · · Score: 1

    If all the i-mode players adopt Windows DRM, that gives Microsoft access to a significant chunk of the mobile market.

    Won't the government have a problem with this? Again they're squeezing out the competition due to it's monopoly status? Of course all companies can compete with each other, but when you get into the power that MS has and you start essentially killing off competition, well that's just wrong.

    --
    That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
    1. Re:This sounds like their old haibts. by PFI_Optix · · Score: 1

      If Microsoft's DRM becomes the industry standard, that's hardly a monopoly. It's like saying the makers of QWERTY keyboards are killing off the makers of alternatives like Dvorak.

      --
      120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
    2. Re:This sounds like their old haibts. by IflyRC · · Score: 1

      Doubtful. Apple and it's DRM that is in use for iTunes and the iPod will be a huge competitor. You can't argue monopoly when, if anyone, Apple holds the significant market share.

    3. Re:This sounds like their old haibts. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      That's not comparable. Any text you can type with QWERTY you can type with Dvorak. However music encoded with MS DRM cannot be decoded with any other DRM.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:This sounds like their old haibts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you seriously arguing that there isn't enough competition in DRMing our shit? Are you out of your fucking mind?

    5. Re:This sounds like their old haibts. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the post I replied to?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  9. Neither M$ nor *AA get it -The quest for "IT!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ""It seems most of the media has missed the significance of Microsoft's recent partnership with DoCoMo to put Windows Media DRM on i-mode handsets. If all the i-mode players adopt Windows DRM, that gives Microsoft access to a significant chunk of the mobile market. "

    They get "it" just fine. Question is; do you get "it"?

    1. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it -The quest for "IT!" by mmell · · Score: 1
      Just how popular do you suppose this device will be when a competing device (not encumbered by DRM) comes along.

      Oh, gee . . . the DRM'ed version can handle WMV files, the non-DRM'ed version can only handle MP3's. Gee . . . I guess I'll get the DRM'ed version (even though virtually all of my music is in MP3's). Gotta be able to handle that Microsoft proprietary format!

      Nope. Unless this device can also handle unencumbered media, I predict a short, painful death.

    2. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it -The quest for "IT!" by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Sadly, it won't be like that.

      Instead it will be like, I can get this with regular stuff but if i buy this microsoft enhanced version i can get this too wich isn't avalible any other way.

      Now all they need to do is find something people want and lock it into DRMed media. It shouldn't be hard seeing how people have been told what they want with some deal of success for years now.

    3. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it -The quest for "IT!" by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      Don't ignore the raft of uneducated Joes who slam their CDs in and "just hit Rip in media player, it works for me...", unwittingly ending up with a collection of WMAs.

    4. Re:Neither M$ nor *AA get it -The quest for "IT!" by BigCheese · · Score: 1

      That only happens once. Then the inevitable reinstall (it is Windows after all) and they can no longer play their music I doubt they use WMA the second time round.

      --
      The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
  10. Windows DRM coming to a Linux handset near you! by CockMonster · · Score: 0

    Hardy har har har!

  11. Apple's answer to DRM by Douglas+Simmons · · Score: 4, Funny

    Of all the DRM tools I've encountered, the one that struck me as being most effective has got to be Apple's "Please don't steal music" sticker.

    1. Re:Apple's answer to DRM by WankersRevenge · · Score: 1

      Why? Has there been a notable decrease in shoplifting in your area?

    2. Re:Apple's answer to DRM by creepynut · · Score: 1

      For me at least, there's less incentive to avoid them. Rather than all the DVDs that I've purchased/rented recently (not many mind you) that accuse me of being a thief before the menu even shows up. Apple is high on my list for not getting in my way of doing what I want to do. "Please don't steal music" is nice. "You wouldn't steal a car? Why would you steal movies? Stealing is a crime" Mind you, that isn't an exact quote, the second one, but it's pretty close. It feels like the "ad" is accusing me of stealing, nothing more than a guilt trip, when the only "crime" I've committed is giving my money to the people who produced the disc.

    3. Re:Apple's answer to DRM by ghost+of+perception · · Score: 1

      I've actually seen a sign like that in a shop in Edinburgh (UK.) It reads "Karma is Real so Please Don't Steal from us"

  12. Microsoft mounting the wrong horse by Starker_Kull · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Boy, they know how to pick a loser. Assuming the carriers go along with this, all Microsoft will have is domination over a standard that nobody will want to use. DRM is annoying enough when it comes to file transfers on computers. Can you imagine how annoying it will be with phones? Will your files survive your phone dropping into the toilet? Or will they be easily transferable to a new phone with the same mobile number assigned to it? You know the answer - and of course, you won't be able to redownload files you've paid for.

    It's interesting to see what they waste brainspan and dollars on.

    1. Re:Microsoft mounting the wrong horse by Tx · · Score: 1

      and of course, you won't be able to redownload files you've paid for.

      Of course that's down to the vendors. I've bought a fair few DRM'd Microsoft Reader ebooks, and the main vendors do allow you to redownload those, for example. It should be a legal requirement for all vendors of DRM'd media files to do that IMHO, but I guess that's about as likely as a very unlikely thing.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    2. Re:Microsoft mounting the wrong horse by Starker_Kull · · Score: 1

      Of course that's down to the vendors. I've bought a fair few DRM'd Microsoft Reader ebooks, and the main vendors do allow you to redownload those, for example. It should be a legal requirement for all vendors of DRM'd media files to do that IMHO, but I guess that's about as likely as a very unlikely thing. Very true - and you make a real good point. If a vendor wants to lock-up a file with DRM, meaning that you have bought the rights to VIEW something instead of OWN something, then they should also be responsible for fixing problems that occur when you can no longer VIEW the content due to technical problems.... sadly, I feel we are dreaming. We need some congresspeople to actually possess a large collection of DRM'ed material and have it all wiped by a technical glitch before they are likely to notice the problem. What this probably requires is new, younger congressfolk! (Apologies to the older folk who are with it - but this is a generational thing)

  13. Building your own cellphone by btarval · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Since there's been no coverage of this outside of Silicon valley and the San Jose Mercury News, let me point out that people are starting to build their own cellphones.

    Let the media giants DRM what they want. They'll only succeed in pushing people to other alternatives.

    --
    The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
    1. Re:Building your own cellphone by plopez · · Score: 1

      Until it gets banned. Because, as you know, terrorists and drug runners will want custom phones with custom encryption on them. Or so they will tell people, and most of the sheep will just buy it; hook, line and sinker...

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:Building your own cellphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that you can attach these GSM chips to your PC via a USB interface, it's going to be quite hard to ban these. The only real alternative is to kill the GSM chip industry, and that's unlikely to happen.

  14. Nokia Linux to the rescue by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    come on Finland !!

    http://explorer.altopix.com/map/lqoqnr/Nokia_Headq uarters.htm

    damn, wait

    http://www.engadget.com/2005/02/14/nokia-and-micro soft-get-friendly-over-windows-media/

    Nokia ... revealed their plans to add support for Windows Media Audio files, Windows Media DRM 10 and Media Transfer Protocol to their handsets.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  15. Could be good by GrouchoMarx · · Score: 1, Interesting

    OK, hear me out before you string me up...

    1) MS is a monopoly. Legally defined as such in the US, and I believe EU now as well.

    2) MS gets DRM monopoly through wheeling and dealing.

    3) Competitors cry anti-competative behavior.

    4) A non-corporate-stooge-necon is elected US President. (Let's hope for this anyway, regardless of MS, but I digress...)

    5) DoJ sues MS yet again, forces them to open Windows DRM. With a non-stooge in office, they bother to enforce it this time.

    6) Open DRM is by definition ineffective. Thus the monopoly DRM system is now effectively useless, as forced by the DoJ.

    7) Profit.

    OK, so it's a stretch, but a guy can wish, can't he? There's got to be some good news for people who give a damn about freedom.

    --

    --GrouchoMarx
    Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?

    1. Re:Could be good by towsonu2003 · · Score: 1
      4) A non-corporate-stooge-necon is elected US President.
      you forgot to add the /sarcasm attribute to your argument...
    2. Re:Could be good by Coeurderoy · · Score: 1

      Since the next US president will be either Republican or Democrat, s/he will either bow to the IT industry (Microsoft) or to Hollywood, or both, just because the US need some sort of export industry to be able to at least pretent that the us dollar has some value.
      And monopoly are real good for the current brand of lobbytocracy that rule the US (and the EC), since monopolies have way more money to support "worthy causes".

  16. That's Fine.... by eander315 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Use all the Microsoft DRM you'd like, I'm not buying that device.

    1. Re:That's Fine.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That's right. Even if you buy the phone (since the wireless telecoms will basically force them on you by having all new phone models come with this capability), this DRM crap will only be profitable if people actually buy the DRM-encumbered media ("content"), just like your telecom's current add-on services (overpriced games, ringtones, pix messages, etc.) are only profitable if you actually use them, instead of just using the phone as a phone.

      Don't buy any DRM-encumbered media, and MS and friends will just be wasting money on this scheme of theirs.

      Of course, the usual problem is that all the stupid teenagers buy this crap and feed the profit machine, preventing the market from correcting for the rest of us that have a brain.

    2. Re:That's Fine.... by MP3Chuck · · Score: 1

      Heh ... and 20 million other people will say 'DR-what?' as they're handed the free phone that comes with their shiny new cell plan.

    3. Re:That's Fine.... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Why not? Microsoft products are all insecure. They've never written a secure app in their history. Their OS is the only one in the world that you can get a virus (I didn't say trojan) or spyware.

      Breaking MS' DRM should be even easier than a shift key or a magic marker. This is good news!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  17. Another great decision from post-Gates-era MS by kahei · · Score: 5, Funny


    Brilliant. By partnering with bloated, overprotected, "Hey, our shares cost 3 million yen each so the hoi polloi can't buy them" merchants DoCoMo, inventors of the phone-that-is-mostly-only-big-in-Japan, MS have gained a foothold in the crucial 'things that people actively want to not have' market.

    Next up, a partnership with Freddy Krueger to gain a foothold in the 'things that shoot razor blades into your hand when you pick them up market'. Followed by a partnership with the earth's ferrous core (a major player in minerals circles) to get into the 'things that are thousands of miles below the earth's surface and vaporize human flesh on contact' market.

    And of course, a strong position in the market for technologies that customers actually pay to avoid could also lead to other key advantages, such as losing money (investors are always suspicios of cash-heavy companies) and being widely ridiculed (a new, positive, clown-like image).

    'DRM market space', yeesh. Make some forking products already. Where's my sub $100 tablet PC?

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
  18. OK, let me try to make sense of this... by acvh · · Score: 2

    A Japanese mobile telecomm provider will use Microsoft's DRM on its phones.

    Therefore all other DRM systems, portable music players, and Apple, will cease to exist?

    Hell, I still can't find anyone who listens to music on their phone.

    1. Re:OK, let me try to make sense of this... by ran-o-matic · · Score: 1

      This is off-topic, but: I listen to music on my phone every day. It's a 6700 that has MS Media Play 10 built-in, but I never use that MS junk. I use TCPMP - it works great.

    2. Re:OK, let me try to make sense of this... by papaZ0rgl · · Score: 1

      I do every day : I listen to mp3 backup of my cd collection in the bus to work.

    3. Re:OK, let me try to make sense of this... by bazorg · · Score: 1
      You were oh so close of getting the point of all this. You see, there's millions of callcenters all over the world playing music before someone eventually picks up the phone and deals with the clients calling them. Among those millions of people that are put on hold and on queue, there are hordes of evil pirates using their evil MP3 playing and recording mobile phones to make illegal copies of those songs and dumping them in P2P networks. The RIAA teamed up with Microsoft to stop this before it kills the industry.

      (on a more serious note, I've looked at price list items for Siemens PABX equipment and remember that for call-waiting music you could have one artificial tune being repeated ad aeternum as a basic feature of the device, but allowing to plug in a CD player cost a load of money)

    4. Re:OK, let me try to make sense of this... by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      "Hell, I still can't find anyone who listens to music on their phone."

      Some teenagers in my family buy a lot of music for their phones (>10/month), not for listenning but as ringtones and DRM really makes sense for the seller since:
      *They are not directly paying it (thank you daddy...) so they don't care about price to a certain extend.
      *They don't want to keep them very long (last semester dance hit is lame!)
      *They all want the same stuff at the same moment and would copy it if it was easy to do so.

  19. That's going to be one big battery by MikeRT · · Score: 2

    When people aren't listening to music, they'll need a good charge in case they have to make a long phone call. I think that is reason enough to not worry about "one device to rule them all."

    1. Re:That's going to be one big battery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could have sworn you said "last phone call."

      heh heh heh

  20. Re:It's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But he still won't give you the loving you so crave. Sucks, don't it?

  21. It's 1996 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    "Netscape and its HTML Rendering Engine will be a huge competitor. You can't argue monopoly when, if anyone, Netscape holds the significant market share."

    ...We're talking about Microsoft leveraging its monopoly power to diminish Apple's strength as competition in this area. And the U.S. D.O.J.--as it is currently staffed--won't do a damn thing to stop it from happening and/or punish Microsoft after the damage has been done.

  22. We've gone back to books. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I recently rented a DVD for my family and I to watch. We have our DVD player attached to one of those combined VHS/TV televisions. Apparently the Macrovision copy protection on the DVD prevented it from playing very well. The picture would brighten and darked repeatedly. We weren't even recording onto a VHS tape, so we aren't sure why we had problems.

    Regardless, we promptly returned the DVD to the video shoppe, and went to the library. My son and daughters each selected a number of books, as did my wife and I. For the past few weeks, we have been reading instead of watching TV or movies. To be frank, we are far happier. It costs us far less, and the quality of the content is often far higher. We often learn, rather than mindlessly digest.

    I wish to thank those who advocate the use of DRM. It has successfully turned us away from using such products, back towards books. We are far better off for that.

    1. Re:We've gone back to books. by babbling · · Score: 1

      Thanks for this post. Allow me to explain...

      Recently, me and my girlfriend were at the cinemas, looking for a movie to watch. We noticed that there was nothing on except for V for Vendetta (which we had already seen) appealed to us. We almost decided to see a movie just for the heck of it, despite this, but I pointed out that we were seeing a movie even though everything on looked crap.

      We ended up not seeing a movie, but we'll surely run into this same problem again. You've inspired me to next time get some books and go somewhere to read those, instead. I haven't read a book in a while.

    2. Re:We've gone back to books. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slightly off topic, but it sounds like the problem might be with your pass-through tuner in your TV/VCR combo. I've had the same thing happen several times with non-DRM controled content like console video games and home movies from the camcorder. The converter that changes RCA type video to F-Jack style video are notoriously bad on TV/VCR combos becuase the circuitry is on a separate board than what handles the normal TV tuning.

      This post brought to you by "embassy"

    3. Re:We've gone back to books. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to say that it isn't possible, but the grandparent has a spot on description of macrovision. I've gone through the exact same thing and I can't say I've seen similar symtoms due to anything else. My TV only has a coax connection so I used a VCR for the RCA connectors. Eventually it blew up and I just got a DVD combo thing which has no problems. I also got a RF modulator for other purposes but this supposidly filters macrovision as well.

  23. Nokia by traveller604 · · Score: 0

    I think N91 was delayed because they wanted to make it work with WMP11 and the DRM thingy. Anyways I'm very happy with my phone :D

  24. What a bitch! by babbling · · Score: 1

    Microsoft has been fucking the RIAA *and* the MPAA behind our back!

  25. Standards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happened to the idea of all the big boys sitting down and drawing up somethings? What about governments sitting down and saying we need something?

    Surely the model of the internet working as it does sets some level that we can aspire to in other markets?

  26. Forgot to set to plain text... by creepynut · · Score: 1

    Sorry about the formatting there..

  27. There already are DRM standards "in the wild". by Hast · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Funny thing is that the article seem to miss one small point. They talk about how Microsoft *may* become a standard on DoCoMos FOMA networks. The thing is that the OMA DRM specification already exist and run on millions of phones in Europe. (And anywhere else which has GSM/UMTS phones.)

    I fail to see how this new architecture can hope to jump in and replace something which has already been in use for a couple of years.

    Of course a lot of people probably don't realise that they have DRM on their phones.

    1. Re:There already are DRM standards "in the wild". by da_matta · · Score: 1

      The problem with OMA DRM is that it suffers from patent dispute (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/19/mobile_dr m_levy/) with MPEG LA (Sony, Matsumita, Intertrust, etc). OMA is an open specification/"industry standardization" organization that creates service and technology specifications that are normally license free for everyone. What MPEG LA did, was that they waited until OMA DRM 1.0 was finalized and deployed in millions of phones before announcing that they have patent claims. They're now trying to get the operators to pay about $1 for each user for something they're already using. Now GSMA (an operator organization) doesn't like this and would like to have a license fee solution, or at least use the "MS card" to get a better deal. The thing is that the business of MPEG LA is to get money from patent licensing, while MS would like get marketshare in mobile DRM (possibly giving away licenses). Which foot would you like to shoot yourself, Sir? ;)

    2. Re:There already are DRM standards "in the wild". by Hast · · Score: 1

      The DRM scheme in OMA DRM1.0 is pretty basic. Basically it would mean that this patent holder has put a patent on the process of "encrypting content and then giving away the key". I'd say that's pretty damned bogus.

      I haven't heard anything else about this patent dispute (and it's over a year old) so I don't know what happened with it. (And I work in the business, fortunately not with the legal parts though.) To me it just seems like the standard "Ha ha, now you have to pay us." crap that pantent lawyers call "All in a days work".

      I can say that I sometimes feel dirty for working with DRM. But I comfort myself with the knowledge that at least I'm not a litigious patent lawyer.

  28. Knee-jerk misconceptions by GringoGoiano · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've been using Microsoft DRM with the Napster subscription service for over a year now on an iRiver H10 hard-drive device. You can't beat the convenience and the price -- the cost of a single CD per month for lots of great music.

    It's such a good model I even bought four more iRiver devices for others.

    To clarify some points in the original comment:

    • you can download files multiple times (unlike Apple iTunes where you download a file only once and need to copy to other devices)
    • it's easy to transfer to multiple mobile devices with Windows Media Player
    • there is a limit on how many total times a file can be downloaded, but when I had to wipe a hard drive and re-install the OS on a particular machine a quick call to Napster got me past that issue -- they'll work with you

    The pricing and model beats iTunes. Many, many services will end up using Microsoft DRM. When people wake up and look beyond the fatuous Apple image to practical realities, Microsoft DRM will come out the winner.

    1. Re:Knee-jerk misconceptions by BVis · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Is it just me or does this post sound like "marketing shill" to anyone else?

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    2. Re:Knee-jerk misconceptions by el+cisne · · Score: 1

      "The pricing and model beats iTunes. Many, many services will end up using Microsoft DRM. When people wake up and look beyond the fatuous Apple image to practical realities, Microsoft DRM will come out the winner."

      Well, maybe fine for you and others, but for me...my own personal "practical reality" is that there is no way in hell I am gonna pay a monthly subscription fee. No frakkin way. It has absolutely nothing to do with cutesy products, what the 16-25 year old set think is hot, the color of the headphones. I don't know of any other unquestionably legal service that will 1) let me only pay when I want to 'buy' something, and 2) will work on our non-Windows machines.

    3. Re:Knee-jerk misconceptions by Starker_Kull · · Score: 1

      I've been using Microsoft DRM with the Napster subscription service for over a year now on an iRiver H10 hard-drive device. You can't beat the convenience and the price -- the cost of a single CD per month for lots of great music. It's such a good model I even bought four more iRiver devices for others. To clarify some points in the original comment: you can download files multiple times (unlike Apple iTunes where you download a file only once and need to copy to other devices) it's easy to transfer to multiple mobile devices with Windows Media Player there is a limit on how many total times a file can be downloaded, but when I had to wipe a hard drive and re-install the OS on a particular machine a quick call to Napster got me past that issue -- they'll work with you The pricing and model beats iTunes. Many, many services will end up using Microsoft DRM. When people wake up and look beyond the fatuous Apple image to practical realities, Microsoft DRM will come out the winner. Funny, I didn't mention Apple at all in my original post. Got an inferiority complex going there? ;) My point was DRM in general is a pain, and Microsoft has a pretty consistent history of keeping it painful. You are right, I shouldn't pre-judge what they will actually do, but history makes me skeptical. And I like NO DRM, Apple, Microsoft, or otherwise.

    4. Re:Knee-jerk misconceptions by Evangelion · · Score: 0, Flamebait


      So how many posts do you have to make a day to meet your quota?

      Just curious, I'd like a job shilling if I'm ever layed off.

    5. Re:Knee-jerk misconceptions by zcsteele · · Score: 1

      Actually, it sounded more like a statisfied customer. Which is, of course, the only way the DRM can really catch on.

      Just because you don't like Microsoft doesn't mean everything they do is stupid & useless. I don't care for most of their stuff either, and I'm not about to buy into MS's DRM scheme, but they do seem to have the most customer-friendly version of DRM right now.

      --
      ...brand new, all over again.
    6. Re:Knee-jerk misconceptions by BVis · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to make a judgement on the content (MS DRM being good or bad), just the tone sounded kinda "slick" and "marketese" to me.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    7. Re:Knee-jerk misconceptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea it's all great until you stop subscribing and Lose all your music that you have paid for.

  29. Well, that's alright then by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Microsoft owns the mobile DRM space? Great! Now they will fuck it up like they fuck up everything else, it won't even be marginally functional until release 3.1, and that will take them years. Everybody will hate it and its bugs and misfeatures, it won't work, content factories will come to realize DRM doesn't restrict anything except their ability to attract new customers, and DRM will get the bloody black eye it deserves.

    That's alright then.

    1. Re:Well, that's alright then by gwait · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah well, it's not that bad, so you won't be able to pirate Britney Spears's comeback CD in a couple years.

      Buy a guitar, read a book, go to a coffee shop and hang out with freinds etc.
      Many people commenting in this topic have realized that all this DRM crap is waking us up to the fact that we don't need any of these products at all.
      Want to screw up my television watching habits with DRM? Fine, I'll turn the stupid thing off and take the dog to the park for a walk!

      --
      Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
  30. Leveraging monopolies, to create more monopolies by guidryp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This really isn't a surprise. Just business as usual. Microsoft has vast monopoly power that will allow it to gain monopolies in any emerging computing connected/related device.

    PDA's previously owned by Palm, will soon be a microsoft monopoly.

    Gaming. Sony faces the biggest threat ever and yet managed to make incredibly stupid moves that will make the move to microsoft gaming domination even faster. Microsoft is using it's clout with gaming house/publishers and outright buying them if all else fails. The end is microsoft will dominate console gaming. Only when is the question, not if.

    Media. Microsoft is agressively pusing it's DRM/codecs everywhere. It managed to get it's codecs into both HD-DVD and Blu Ray standards. It has just about every online media shop except Itunes. Itunes is an anomoly and it will be interesting to see how weathers the microsoft onslaught. I predict in 10 years. More than half the music sold will be using microsoft DRM.

  31. You lost me at #4 by spun · · Score: 1

    A non-corporate-stooge-necon is elected US President. might as well wish for a magical unicorn from happy land. Oh wait. Did I parse that wrong? Okay, is it (non-corporate-stooge)-necon or non-(corporate-stooge-necon)? Because the first doesn't exist. If you meant the second, I agree, but it really wasn't clear.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:You lost me at #4 by GrouchoMarx · · Score: 1

      Ha! Yes, I did mean "!(corporate stooge neocon)". I was referencing the fact that in 1999-2000, the DoJ had MS on the ropes and on the verge of being broken up. The first act of the Bush DoJ was to tell Microsoft "bad boy, don't do it again, now go back to business as usual."

      --

      --GrouchoMarx
      Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?

  32. And in a related note... by hullabalucination · · Score: 3, Informative
    I recently took the $300/year I would have probably spent on commercial music this year and spent it on a new guitar instead, and started playing again in earnest (after about 10 years of on-again, off-again).

    I've been extremely disappointed with 90% of the albums I've purchased over the past decade. One half-way decent song and 7 to 9 other Contractual Obligatory Offerings for $13.95 is just way too out of line with market realities. I guess I'm the last person on the planet who doesn't own an iPod (actually, I've been told there's another person in Mauritania who also doesn't own one), so I'm not buying my music alacarte. I'm not sure that even if I could purchase by the song I would find enough good stuff to be satisified with the Standard Product coming out of the music industry these days.

    On the plus side: playing music makes you smarter (pretty sure I've read that research has indicated this; back in the 70's, IBM used to use programming aptitude tests that looked closely at musical skills as an indicator of possible programming aptitude in non-programmers), it's a great stress-reliever and no matter how bad you are as a musician, you'll never be as bad as The White Stripes.

    Seriously, though, several friends have told me that an hour of me for free is a better deal than 42:30 of Beck at any price. I tell them to bring the beer and everybody's happy.

    1. Re:And in a related note... by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Amen, Brother, sing it loud!

      I play guitar (lead in a very good little blues band) as well as being a bit of a *nix geek. (OK, maybe more than "a bit" :P) I've had a number of people that know I'm a computer geek ask me to help them with various stupid music DRM issues, (most of which were just insoluble legally..nature of the beast and all that) and I've actually managed to convince a couple of the more frustrated among them to take up playing an instrument.

      When I talked to them after some months had passed, they told me they enjoyed the ability to actually *make* music so much, that they spend most of their spare time/money that they had previously spent on "a limited license to listen to" music on lessons, music accessories, and just plain enjoying a whole new experience and ability to actually *create* something, even if they aren't gifted with any notable musical talent.

      Sadly, I know most people wouldn't consider doing this as it requires an investment in time and work, as well as money. However, if one decides to go this route, you'll find it is *so* much more rewarding than simply spending some cash on someone elses' idea of good music.

      BTW, I know of no DRM'ed guitars, drums, basses, horns, etc., so anything you create is *yours*, and limited only by the amount of practice and imagination you invest, plus any natural talent you may have.

      As a side note, one of these people I talk about has actually started to play harmonica in a local band, and makes some side money from gigs. I know no way to legally make money from a DRM'ed music "purchase". He's quite happy, society is enriched, and the commercial music industry is that much poorer.

      Cheers!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re:And in a related note... by MP3Chuck · · Score: 1

      "BTW, I know of no DRM'ed guitars, drums, basses, horns, etc."

      Don't give 'em any ideas! "You appear to be playing Stairway to Heaven. Please enter your Performance License Code or turn your amp below volume level '3.' Thank you."

    3. Re:And in a related note... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      "BTW, I know of no DRM'ed guitars, drums, basses, horns, etc."

      Don't give 'em any ideas! "You appear to be playing Stairway to Heaven. Please enter your Performance License Code or turn your amp below volume level '3.' Thank you."


      LOL!!! Nice one! :D

      That should really get a +1 funny. Or a +1 scary, heh.

      Fortunately, my old Seymour Duncan 84-40 1-12" combo amp is so loud, I've never had it above a "3" volume setting at a performance, even at outdoor venues. (That amp is the loudest amp per-watt I've *ever* heard, and I've owned an original "Plexi" 100 watt Marshall full-stack.)

      Uh-oh, I could be violating the DMCA by having a louder-than-normal amp if that were implemented! :P

      Cheers!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  33. One Standard to Rule Them All? by Infonaut · · Score: 1

    ...I'd like to see some kind of set standard, so I can listen to my music from any service on any player.

    No DRM at all seems like a better set standard than one particular flavor of DRM, don't you think?

    However, even if there were no DRM, there would still be competition between music providers. MP3 would be the standard format, but AAC, Ogg Vorbis, et al would be offered by different music stores. Basically, I don't know that it's possible to have one Holy Grail Music Format. The days of the phonograph and cassette tape are dead, because computer technology has opened up format competition.

    Now that the cat is out of the bag, I don't see how it can be put back in, except by settling on some sort of anti-competitive monopoly standard, which as we've seen with Windows, isn't such a good thing for competition or for consumers.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  34. Re: MS + DRM = GPS-DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The most likely technical enhancements Micorosft will make to DRM is embellishment with GPS tracking technology to ensure the MS name (Maximum Surveillance) is earned by every device with the MS label.

  35. Independent Company by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    If we have to have DRM, then I for one would feel much more comfortable if it was an indepdent company, where DRM was their only line of business. This way you could feel safe that you don't have companies like Microsoft and Apple with what would appear to be a conflict of interest.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  36. MS! by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

    Making the trains run on time!

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  37. Re:Leveraging monopolies, to create more monopolie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a very astute observation. How can anyone involved in antitrust not come to the conslusion that Microsoft is 8,000 times more a monololy today than it was when the trial was determining whether MS Office and Windows constituted a monopoly? Then, the issue of servers and devices were not even factors. Now that MS represents a quasi-governmental agency with total disregard for business ethics and consumer privacy, there is little chance that the antitrust laws that all other businesses have to abide by will be applied to MS.

  38. Oh, nicely done! by Crash+Culligan · · Score: 1
    Hate to say it, but I think it'll be a good thing. Mostly because I'd like to see some kind of set standard, so I can listen to my music from any service on any player. Thats not too much to ask, right?

    Excellent work, sir! That was some wickedly subdued sarcasm! I look forward to the flamewar the misunderstanding of that statement spawns downthread.

    --
    You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
  39. Centuries of War by gerrysteele · · Score: 1
    Centuries of War, millions of deaths; all in the name of freedom, free speech, individual personal freedom and moral right.

    Doesn't matter any more. Psychopathic Corporate entities will use the money and power they have attained through the liberalisation and centralisation of national resources to coerce government into becoming a commerce enabling gateway stripping individuals of their apparently inconsequential right to all the above freedoms.

    Freedoms are a commercially incompatible route to free choice.

    If you ask One Million Customers what they think of DRM, assuming they know the full story, not one will tell you it is a positive or worthwhile or wanted product.

    The customer is dead, the commercial human entity has now been born. A machine made to consume. Long live the robots.

  40. This may actually be a good thing. by erveek · · Score: 1

    Consider CSS. It was lousy encryption, sure, but it was standardized across an entire medium. DVD's are rippable (and viewable on non-sanctioned players and operating systems) as a result.

    Now, consider what would happen if this Microsoft DRM becomes industry standard. If it's the standard, it's everywhere. If it gets cracked, it's cracked for everything that uses MS' DRM.

    Given the legendary quality and security we've come to expect from Microsoft's software offerings, well, you can figure out the rest.

    --
    -- This void intentionally left null.
  41. Re:Leveraging monopolies, to create more monopolie by Ancil · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Microsoft has vast monopoly power that will allow it to gain monopolies in any emerging computing connected/related device.
    That's the slashdot party line, but even your own examples show how laughable the idea is.
    PDA's previously owned by Palm, will soon be a microsoft monopoly.
    Even the most hateful of Microsoft bashers will admit that Microsoft never won the PDA market. Rather, Palm lost the PDA market by sitting on its ass for five years and releasing software riddled with bugs. Good for Microsoft. Memo to Palm: You snooze, you lose.
    Gaming. Sony faces the biggest threat ever and yet managed to make incredibly stupid moves that will make the move to microsoft gaming domination even faster.
    I wouldn't count Nintendo out yet. The Wii's price point is intriguing.

    That said, Sony is just Palm all over again. Sony had a gargantuan lead with the PS2 -- 75% market share or some such. Then they basically rolled over. The PS3 wanders onstage a full year after Xbox 360 (assuming no further delays), costing $600?? Who's going to buy that? By next Christmas, the 360 will cost $300 and have hundreds of games.

    Why should Microsoft take heat for Sony being a bunch of idiots?

    Media. Microsoft is agressively pusing it's DRM/codecs everywhere.
    Yeah, that's what businesses do. Go figure.

    I'll put it plainly: Movie studios won't accept Fairplay for movies, period. They've gotten burned too many times by software-only solutions. They are looking for a tamper-resistant, hardware-based alternative. So far Intel and Microsoft are the only companies stepping up to the plate.

    Microsoft isn't winning the DRM fight because of its "monopoly powers" (the only monopoly in digital media right now is iTunes). It's winning because no one else is in the game. It's easy to win a race when you're the only one running.

  42. No shill here by GringoGoiano · · Score: 1

    No shilling here. I like the iRiver device and the Napster service, and Microsoft happens to make it possible.

    And I like Linux too. I worked three years developing a Linux-based software product at SenSage and appreciated Linux for what it provided. In like vein I appreciate Microsoft's DRM.

    1. Re:No shill here by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      I don't like the idea of monthly fees - that's just me, however that said, I'd pay this fee and setup well before I'd pay for XM or Sirius...

      And if someone offered something like this for TV shows and movies with a lead time similar to what I can get with newsgroups, at a similar price ($15-$20 a month), I'd pay to be legal. I care far less about owning stuff that I'll only watch once, and I'm ok with watching a TV show the day after it aired w/out commercials.

      I'd like to get movies for an add on price - I'd pay up to $3 a movie, if it was released say a week or two after the theater release. Once I bought the movie, I'd need to be able to watch it for at least a week though, I'd prefer if it was available for as long as I kept up my subscription to the preferrably integrated service.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
  43. Ooooo...something to look forward to... by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 1

    My phone bluescreening at random intervals.

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
  44. This is GREAT! by mythandros · · Score: 1

    When has a microsoft product not been released with a day 0 exploit? MS just made my decade.

  45. Anyone dumb enough to pay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    money for a song for their cellphone is dumb enough not to care about drm.

  46. Nonsense by tabdelgawad · · Score: 1

    The constitution gives *Congress* the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". It does not encumber in any way, shape, or form, the way Authors and Inventors make their Writings and Discoveries available to the public.

    --
    Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
  47. Re:Leveraging monopolies, to create more monopolie by guidryp · · Score: 1

    "that said, Sony is just Palm all over again. Sony had a gargantuan lead with the PS2 -- 75% market share or some such. Then they basically rolled over."

    The only thing laughable is your very thin analysis. Sony's flubbed launch will speed up the process, but it does not change the inevitable outcome. Sony was mortally wounded the day the first Xbox was launched. It is only a quesiton of how much time it takes to die. Microsoft is leveraging a combination of PC API's, Market clout and it's mountain of monopoly cash to buy out developers when all else fails. Look at the number of PC/Xbox only releases even when the ps/2 was the market leader. Microsoft is simply extending one monopoly into another.

    This is no slashdot party line. It is simple observations. How do you compete against someone who owns the main gaming API's for PC, and has massive marketing clout and a mountain of cash to buy up the developers that are the oxygen of gaming. Thinking ahead (generation 3 or 4 Xbox) in gaming time. There were will be Microsoft and bit players.

    The same thing will happen in any computing related market Microsoft wants to dominate.

  48. Re:Leveraging monopolies, to create more monopolie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On a side note...

    It will be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out with MS's recent E3 announcements about their new Live Anywhere feature in developement for the Xbox 360 and Windows Vista. Download music on your computer, listen to it in your video games, then take it with you on your cell phone. Only a company like MS could pull something like that off, and it appears they're giving it their best shot.

  49. That is accurate, but... by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    There IS a law that IS thoroughly Unconstitutional in light of the GP's comments.

    The DMCA does not make provisions for whether or not the work protected is no longer under Copyright- it's still very illegal to provide or traffic in a circumvention method or disclose how to accomplish the same, even if you're talking about it in the context of a work in the Public Domain that's "protected" by the DRM.

    This effectively makes it Copyrighted forever . Mandated DRM combined with DMCA makes for an eternal Copyright for all intents and purposes- at the least the DMCA needs to go the way of the Dodo because it's in violation of the Constitutional grant of authority in this matter given to Congress.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  50. Nice try, but nope... by Svartalf · · Score: 1
    Yes, you're not a Lawyer, and in reality, neither am I, but being a IP producer (SF Author, Accomplished Software Professional, Musician, and Inventor with one Patent applied for and at least 5 or more on the way...), I've some small knowlege on how the whole lot works.

    Section 1201 makes it illegal to:


            * (1) "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work" except as allowed after rulemaking procedures administered by the Register of Copyrights every three years.
            * (2) "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in" a device, service or component which is primarily intended to circumvent "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work", and which either has limited commercially significant other uses or is marketed for the anti-circumvention purpose.
            * sell any VHS VCR, 8mm analogue video tape recorder, Beta video recorder or other analogue video cassette recorder which isn't affected by automatic gain control copy protection (the basis of Macrovision). This is not required if the video is directly from a camera lens, for a professional recorder or for resale of a used recorder.



    While it doesn't impact any defenses to prosecution on infringement (Which is what we normally call "Fair Use"...), the above pretty much means if you're breaking a work out of a DRMed transport that has lapsed into the Public Domain, you're still breaking the law as you're violating items 1 or 2 as the law doesn't have exemptions for works effectively in the Public Domain- it doesn't care or even talk to that. It only makes illegal anything that could be used to circumvent a protection measure used to protect a given Work of Art.

    Basically, you've got two things going on here. You've got traditional Copyright law with all the protections, etc. that entails with that. Then you've got this poorly crafted (and willfully done so...) overlay called the DMCA that makes it a requirement to pull anything on a moment's notice from a website or similar (With no proof of ownership being required...) and makes it illegal to discuss or implement any means for unlocking the content, even if it's in the Public Domain at the time it was encapsulated in the DRMed format.

    Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that an IP lawyer will tell you the same thing or something very similar here.
    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  51. MS DRM by bmh129 · · Score: 1

    They can have it. I usually don't allow my "radical" thoughts to be posted like this, but I think I speak for most informed users when I say they can take their digital restrictions management and shove it straight up their nether regions.

  52. Re:Leveraging monopolies, to create more monopolie by BigCheese · · Score: 1

    Just to pick a nit Sony's biggest enemy is Sony. Not Microsoft.

    --
    The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
  53. One problem with all MP3 Mobile Phones by plusser · · Score: 1

    Currently, you can't use them on a passenger aircraft, as they are all mobile phones and have to be turned off throughout the flight, in many cases by law!

    Looks like one place where an MP3 player could come in very useful to pass away the time....

    1. Re:One problem with all MP3 Mobile Phones by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      The SonyEricsson W800 has a "music only mode" for this exact reason. I've found it's mostly worthless however as flight attendents don't really understand what it is, and will ask you to switch it off regardless. Given a choice between explaining the details of your phone/mp3 player moments before takeoff (so looking like a jackass) or just switching it off, the latter is always easier.

      This situation may improve with time.

    2. Re:One problem with all MP3 Mobile Phones by Squigley · · Score: 1

      Unless you have a 5g ipod, and as soon as you go above a few thousand feet, even in a pressurised cabin, it comes up with disk errors until you land at the other end.

    3. Re:One problem with all MP3 Mobile Phones by plusser · · Score: 1

      Thanks to the good old atmospheric radiation upset, caused by the small sub 0.25um geometries of modern commercial silicon. That's why aerospace electronics appear very old fashioned in comparison with the consumer world.

      And before you ask, sheilding the device doesn't actually work, we are talking about radiation and not radio waves.

  54. I think this will fail, miserably by multimediavt · · Score: 1

    Ok, I know some people that have the ROKR and other phones that play MP3s. Most of them NEVER use the functionality because they're talking on the phone more than they are using it to play music. Plus, these folks also have iPods that they use in their cars and when they're working out. They rarely take their phone to the gym with them, and if they do they leave it in the car and take their iPod in. I don't see this flying. As for ring tones, I think most of the people I know get one or two a year, if they get any at all because they are ridiculously expensive. I think Microsoft is gonna fall flat on their face with this move and not even put a dent in the digital music market (let alone in the DRM world) currently owned by Apple. IMHO

  55. So that's the end for Java/Linux on mobile phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With Java and Linux seeing a lot of use on mobile phones, will we see these being pushed out by Windows because surely to use Windows DRM you need to be using Windows platform on the phone?

    This is a case of using the desktop monopoly, and desire to be compatible with all those Windows desktops, to enter other markets.

    Pity really. Compare Java/Linux with Dot-Net/Windows and Java/Linux wins hands down. I imagine that's why they've done so well so far despite the compatibility advantages pushed by Microsoft for their platform. I've found Dot-Net performance terribly slow, and some of the stupid errors it throws up at runtime incredibly annoying. Switching back to working on Java in Eclipse is like a breath of fresh air.

  56. Re:Leveraging monopolies, to create more monopolie by gnazzah · · Score: 1

    It's easy to win a race when you're the only one running.

    Too bad the race is so crap to watch that everybody leave before the second half.

  57. mod the parent up. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    very nice link

    mod parent up.

    I recently had to buy a new cellphone because my old one literally broke down. it was 6.5 inches x 2 inches x 1.5 inches (big), had a black and white screen, and had something which is sorely lacking in todays overbloated cellphones.. FUNCTIONALITY.

    It served as a phone and only a phone, and as such it was simpler to use than even an ipod, and could easily run for 2 weeks between charges.

    the phone i got to replace it has useless crap such as color screens and fancy lights/ringtones, but these are at the expense of such things as battery life and the simplicity necessary for use on the go.

    I would be more than happy to build my own cellphone to avoid these problems.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  58. It is not such a problem by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

    Media files on phones aren't supposed to last longer than a couple of monthes.
    The target audience is teenagers who absolutely do not want to be caught with anything that is no longer in top 10 charts.

  59. DRM crashes by lon3st4r · · Score: 1
    I have a question?
    Will I be able to sue micr.. *cough cough* a DRM product company if their application crashes and I am locked out of their media?

    quick, before they put it in the EULA