Jeff52 wrote:
The labels (and some software companies) idea of "fair use" is DRM.
Ultimately what they want is for us to rip the music with a DRM
compliant ripper which requires a "license" in order to rip and
thereafter play it. I would guess that the vast majority of folks rip
using one of the standard rippers, e.g., Music Match, Real Player,
Windows Media Player, iTunes, etc., rather than EAC, CD-EX, etc. and to
the extent that these programs and the players used to play the music
are DRM protected then I assume the labels would be happy.
Once again, what a mess.
Why would Microsoft want DRM? What's in it for them? Why should they
care about casual music piracy?
They don't care about it except as an excuse for DRM, and the reason
they want DRM, I think, is lock-in. If they can build-in DRM, then they
can control what programs are 'trusted' to open other file types, no
matter who created the content in the file or who owns the content.
If cooperative legislators, like Fritz Hollings, make it illegal to sell
or even own hardware that doesn't include built-in DRM, then we're all
screwed, not just those of us who want fair use of the music we buy.
I don't use MS Word, but almost all of the people who send me articles
for a school newsletter I edit use it. If future versions of Word are
DRM'd, I may no longer be able to open these files because my word
processor isn't 'trusted.' The DRM fight is about much more than just
copying a song.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
