1. I do understand that MS may be adding this DRM "feature" to protect their collective arses from RIAA lawyers, but it still stinks. DRM treats consumers as criminals for no reason other than to prop up the entertainment industry's crumbling business model.

It has become so easy to reach people that many artists are deciding that there isn't any real nead for a record company anymore. We can thank sites like MySpace for this.

Half decent recording can be done cheaply and easily on a home computer and a copy of Garageband.

It doesn't require a record company anymore to do mass duplication. That, too, has gotten quite cheap.

In a nutshell, they are trying to plug the holes in the dam, but they are taking exactly the wrong road. They've taken the low road, not the high road.

Posted at 4:12PM on Sep 20th 2006 by tinfoil

2. You think maybe you got it wrong because Cesar gave everyone the wrong information - then took four days to correct the record?

Or did it take Microsoft four days to figure out how to spin this one in their favor?

Posted at 7:08PM on Sep 20th 2006 by vida

3. @2: Well, I wasn't going to lay it on Cesar but, I'm not going to argue with you either. :)

Posted at 7:21PM on Sep 20th 2006 by Grant Robertson

4. ..."Or did it take Microsoft four days to figure out how to spin this one in their favor?" -Vida

So much for spin. What they said basically was, "The 3 day/play restriction isn't from a software DRM restriction, it's a hardware DRM restriction." The CC licenses seem to prohibit both. This is clipped right from the CC-faq page:

Q: What happens if someone tries to protect a CC-licensed work with digital rights management (DRM) tools?

A: If a person uses DRM tools to restrict any of the rights granted in the license, that person violates the license. All of our licenses prohibit licensees from “distributing the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.”

That line "any technological measures that control access or use of the Work" seems broad enough to cover what the Zune does IMO - HOW it happens seems irrelevent.

Just because they've found a semantic loophole to slither through doesn't mean I feel any better about them violating my music's CC-licenses!

Posted at 12:03PM on Sep 22nd 2006 by Laer

5. ..."Or did it take Microsoft four days to figure out how to spin this one in their favor?"-Vida

So much for spin. What they said basically was, "The 3 day/play restriction isn't from a software DRM restriction, it's a hardware DRM restriction." The CC licenses seem to prohibit both. This is clipped right from the CC-faq page:

Q: What happens if someone tries to protect a CC-licensed work with digital rights management (DRM) tools?

A: If a person uses DRM tools to restrict any of the rights granted in the license, that person violates the license. All of our licenses prohibit licensees from “distributing the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.”

That line "any technological measures that control access or use of the Work" seems broad enough to cover what the Zune does IMO - how it happens seems irrelevent.

Just because they've found a semantic loophole to slither through doesn't mean I feel any better about them violating my music's CC-licenses!

Posted at 12:04PM on Sep 22nd 2006 by Laer