Does your product have C. R. A. P.?

Likewise, I believe, Microsoft could earnestly port a full WMP implementation to Mac OS X and support a zen player through USB on a Mac. I don’t know if Apple has ever done anything to prevent this, but it looks like the WMP/PlaysForSure ecosystem does NOT want to exist on Mac OS X.

Considering the driver and other SDKs are available for free, I don't see how apple could prevent it if they wanted to.

So, Scoble is again bravely making an argument counter to Microsoft’s practices.

Not really. He's just saying that DRM sucks. I didn't see him saying he was renouncing WiMP/Real/iTunes/etc until they stop supporting DRM

THAT would be brave. The other is just obvious

John, it was rhetorical.

Windows is an OS (a Platform, too, if you want to use words like that). Apple chose to port the iTunes application to Windows, to support the iPod on Windows using USB (at that time, I believe the iPod was Firewire on Macs), to support Fairplay and Quicktime and the codecs on Windows. Sure, Microsoft could have moved to prevent this ("Windows ain't done 'till iTunes won't run") using whatever justification they want to apply. Maybe the halo effect would have been stronger if the iPod was not available on Windows.

Likewise, I believe, Microsoft could earnestly port a full WMP implementation to Mac OS X and support a zen player through USB on a Mac. I don't know if Apple has ever done anything to prevent this, but it looks like the WMP/PlaysForSure ecosystem does NOT want to exist on Mac OS X.

This has all drifted off topic.
Scoble posting of pointing to the Berlind post/video sure seemed to be an anti-DRM (CRAP) endorsement. As Josh points out in point #1 of comment 21, the DRM choice is one of the content owners and both Apple and Microsoft support music DRM with technology. Further, similar CRAP exists in software activation practices that Microsoft uses.

So, Scoble is again bravely making an argument counter to Microsoft's practices.

Jake, Apple played no part in that. That's just the web site rejecting you based on your user Agent.

Again, Apple is not preventing Microsoft or Real from having their software work correctly on a Mac, and that would be the first step to having even a CHANCE at the iPod.

I don't see any real benefit in receiving Windows Media music files in Fairplay DRM wrappers. I suppose there is some universe of music that is only available in WM format.

Dumping your DRM on the market to try to recover market is a strategy that is not unusual for the member(s) that are behind in market share. Not sure if it is a good strategy.

I tried visiting a PlaysForSure website (PassAlong.com) from a Mac (after all, I have an iPaq that should be able to play the WM+DRM music, but I'm not sure if it does). The website blocked access. I'm not sure what part Apple played in that.

I agree with the PIDs, by the way. Just pointing out that that is CRAP too. I'm always amazed when somebody who sells software for a living rants about music DRM or talks about Torrents of TV shows.

Josh, the only way Apple would even consider letting Microsoft license Fairplay would be with a guarantee that from day 1, Mac users will have the same level and ease of access to WM files as Windows users.

The Microsoft WM is never going to do that, so for Apple to allow Microsoft to license FairPlay would be to turn all of Apple's Mac users into an iPod ghetto of limited functionality because they use Mac OS X.

In what reality is Apple going to screw over *Mac Users* so that Microsoft can get access to the iPod.

If Microsoft is serious about getting WM on the iPod, then let's see full support for WM10 and WM11 on Mac OS X. You know, the way you have full FairPlay support on Windows and Mac OS X.

But until then, it's all crap from the WM PR Machine.

1. Are you purposing to make DRM go away for ever, or just have them work together ‘interoperability’? Content owners will need a way to protect the free “re-distribution” of their intellectual property, without compensation who can make the art?

2. It would be unfair to characterize all DRM strategies between the CRAP providers as equal. I’m sure you are well aware that Apple does not license their DRM & Microsoft does. Considering their business strategies, I could make a strong guess that Microsoft would license Apple’s DRM in a heartbeat, and make their format work with it. Microsoft isn’t about protecting its DRM as much as it is getting people to use Windows. Hence we’ve seen Microsoft add ‘competing’ file formats to the Windows Media player (ie. MP3 pro) in a similar move.

Microsoft’s game is interoperability these days, all between formats. If its OpenDoc, or their PlaysForSure interoperability programs, they are about the choice between it. Tech companies can’t get away from DRM or otherwise the content owners would not offer their content. So if you wanna get legit content you’re gonna have to buy someones crap, and I’d choose Microsofts PlaysForSure crap, it offers the most choices; a wide range of devices and online stores that work together, and I am sure if Apple opened its DRM to licensees’ Microsoft would make it a PlaysForSure device in a heartbeat, cause PlaysForSure isn’t about DRM, its about knowing what DRM works between what stores and mp3 players.

PlaysForSure has nothing to do with DRM being more restrictive, in fact it is all about dealing with the 'crap' problem. It lets you know what 'crap' works with what 'crap', because of the competing DRM standards.

Microsoft allows Apple's software, DRM & devices all work on Windows. That does not happen going the other way.

3. As related to the MPAA/RIAA, they represent the content owners. The content owners grant us a license under established copyright law, either on CD or a digital file. This license is not of 'ownership', they retain that right. When you purchase the music or movie your are purchasing the right for your personal home use. When that is abused by people distributing it freely and often the content owners are nothing but forced to 'protect' their asset and restrict it. You don't own the music in the first place, even if its on a CD, its just a license for home use. Support artists and those who help them fund the creation of their art (the studios and labels).

Microsoft protects its software with PID's because if it was freely distributed how would they keep their doors open. Piracy is a serious issue.

Scoble, I'd be interested if you could comment about how much of a problem piracy is related to Windows in the US and around the world. The percentages are staggering.

There is nothing wrong with subscription music services. It's just a business model and a choice.

I don't know if there is anything inherent in Fairplay that precludes its use in subscription services. Somehow I doubt it. Or, if there is, it's probably just an iTunes/QuickTime and iPod firmware download away from being added.

So far (and this is one of the things, because this could change), I have not found the DRM restrictions of Fairplay to be a problem. I know that there are some people with numerous computers and players that do hit the limits. I suspect if I lived in the PlaysForSure camp, I'd be comfortable with that. Of course, I'm not really in the Fairplay camp - I'm just in the iTunes/iTMS/iPod camp - I enjoy the best overall end to end experience.

Both models of service continue to reward the cartels first before the artists. That's one part of the system that has not changed.

Fairplay doesn't require you to re-authenticate every so often just to keep playing music you've already bought on your iPod. I just went over a month without plugging my iPod into my PowerBook because I hadn't bought any music, or rather, not enough to make it worth the effort...(then I found the Cinderella Live DVD, WOOHOO!). With Fairplay, this isn't a problem. Fairplay doesn't go after forcing you to prove you're not a theif, it's more aimed at making intarweb-wide distribution slightly more difficult. Just enough so that people go, "Oh screw gnutella, it's just a friggin' DOLLAR".

Plays For Sure is aimed at "We want to charge you forever to play the same exact music. Even if you never add another song to your player, you're going to pay for it forever."

That, by the way, is why I call subscription music services a scam.

anon: Plays for Sure is a more restrictive Microsoft DRM standard.

I thought the content providers decide the 'restrictiveness' of the content. Not Microsoft.

The way I see it, PFS can have a rental mode along with the usual DRM types. How is that more restrictive than let's say - Fairplay ?

Well, considering that Microsoft markets WM based on having more draconian DRM options than anyone else...

Jorgen: because I was traveling and in my car and Twit can only be done via Skype.

Interesting that the video doesn't mention that ripping cd's to your ipod in mp3 format makes that music playable anywhere.
Legally bought.

(except for the crap cd's by sony etc, which might make my statement false)

Wow, my brain hurts.

So iTunes music won't work on a handful of CRAPpy PlaysForSure and Sony players but it will work on 100,000,000 standard CD players. Including the XCubeCircle and lord knows how many different Sony players. I guess he forgot about that part...

This isn't a Apple, MS, Sony problem. It is a RIAA/MPAA problem. Boycott them if you don't want 'CRAP'!

Oh, it was caught by Wordpress' spam filter.

James: what you talking about? I haven't deleted anything.

Didn't Robert say censorship was a bad thing....

Hey, where'd the post mentioning the register go?

It's harder to tell these days! I just bought a CD because I was sick of buying itunes with C.R.A.P.. But it turns out that the CD (unmarked btw) had C.R.A.P., and my computer's cd player could not read it!

Then Berlind whips out his iPod and declares it the problem - of course the iPod is perfectly happy playing non-DRMed content.

You know Scoble would never link to a blogger that declared Plays for Sure devices and content providers (Plays for Sure is a more restrictive Microsoft DRM standard) to be the problem.

Hi, In the spirt of conversation, here are some interesting articles:

Office delayed:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/24/office_...

DRM:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/24/lessig_...

Wikipedia:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britann...

Hope you enjoy,

Jon :)

"License keys, product activations, Windows Genuine checks? What is all of that CRAP for?"

OH SNAP.

Man, another controversial post. Tell us how you are going to back that "managed copies" thing, especially to legitimate customers with no internet connection.

Why couldn't you be on twit? Hopefully you'll get on there sometime in the near future, it would be the best show ever.

Well, professional journalism rolls on.

Content restrictions have been around longer than the current wave of digital music. Video tapes have macrovision copy protection. Even DVDs are encrypted to require licensed decoders and are regionalized.

I think the point Berlind was trying to make was that the different DRM systems are not-compatible, though he ranted that once you strip off the DRM, the content was incompatible. Point almost made.

Then Berlind whips out his iPod and declares it the problem - of course the iPod is perfectly happy playing non-DRMed content.

License keys, product activations, Windows Genuine checks? What is all of that CRAP for?

I love it! So true too. this is why I still buy cd's and still keep my analog tape deck around!