Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King
Home / News & Blogs / Between the Lines

Sonos responds to Declaration of InDRMpendence

By | October 5, 2005, 5:11am PDT

Summary: Late last week, I was inspired to write a Declaration of InDRMpendence (declaring my freedom from Digital Restrictions Management [DRM] technology) by my good friend who mistakenly recommended Sonos’ wireless-mesh based whole home audio system.  He was certain that it could play all of the songs he’s purchased through iTunes as long as he hooked [...]

Late last week, I was inspired to write a Declaration of InDRMpendence (declaring my freedom from Digital Restrictions Management [DRM] technology) by my good friend who mistakenly recommended Sonos’ wireless-mesh based whole home audio system.  He was certain that it could play all of the songs he’s purchased through iTunes as long as he hooked on Sonos device to one of the PCs in his house running iTunes. 

"Jim" was about to drop $500 per room to set up his house until I found one line on a page on Sonos’ Web site that’s the perfect proof point of all that is wrong with DRM technology.  Sonos’ gear won’t work with certain types of "DRMed" music. Not from the iTunes music store. Not from from any of the Microsoft-authorized PlaysForSure music stores. It will work with RealNetworks’ Rhapsody service (yet another DRM technology that’s incompatible with the others and is only compatible with certain devices).  But to playback music that has been DRMed with either Apple or Microsoft’s DRM technologies (the two 800 lb DRM gorillas), innovative companies like Sonos must re-engineer their products to support those technologies.  But before they can do that, Apple and Microsoft must first agree to license their DRM technologies to Sonos, and then, Sonos must pay those companies a DRM tax for the privilege of letting its customers play music from their online music stores.  For example, Microsoft has a page on its Web site that spells out the per unit and annual fee licensing options for its DRM technology. My Declaration found its way to Sonos’ executives and here’s the response I got:

Many thanks for including us in your recent blog post titled "Declaration of InDRMpendence." 

For the sake of clarity on our end, you have nailed our position with Apple’s "FairPlay".   Currently, Microsoft’s "PlayForSure" technology doesn’t support multi-room listening.  The DRM is designed for "single zone" listening environments such as portable players, a computer, or a burned CD.  Microsoft has assured us that they will be designing the next rendition of "PlayForSure" to be compatible with multi-room listening.  When they do, we will add support for it immediately.

Thanks for your time sir. 

Thomas L. Meyer
Manager, Public Relations
Sonos, Inc.

Thank you Mr. Meyer for coming forward.

First of all, if I haven’t been clear already about my position on DRM, then here’s a reminder. On it’s current path, particularly with the way Congress is involved, DRM is a train wreck. I believe that copyright holders are entitled to get paid for their content if that’s their business model. However, the DRM technology that’s being used to enforce that payment has gone too far.  Not only is it being used to unfairly restrict our rights to the content that we’d otherwise have legal access to, it’s being used as a market control point that stifles innovation and that could foreclose on competitors.  For example, why must Sonos wait for a willing licensor of DRM technology to fix the specification to support its multi-room architecture — an architecture that’s clearly within the rights of Sonos’ customers to use with the music they’ve legally acquired. 

If we must have DRM, then its application must be rethought and there should be a single open standard for it that everyone complies with.  If such an open standard existed and everyone complied with it, not only would Sonos be free to contribute code to that specification to make it work with its architecture today, it wouldn’t have to pay a tax to anyone to implement that standard, nor would Sonos customers be restricted to a la carte buying of their music from one type of music store (as they will be when and if Sonos does get to support PlaysForSure).  The conditions under which Sonos and other entertainment gear manufacturers are being forced to operate are dangerously monopolistic.

[Update: Jim has purchased the Sonos setup anyway. He loves it.  He's also ponying up to subscribe to Rhapsody's subscription service which is a lot like Yahoo's in that it offers access to an unlimited number of songs.  But as soon as you stop subscribing, you lose access to the music.  He says it's like living in a radio station.  But, when I asked about using that DRMed music in other places and on other devices, he said "Yeah, that's a problem.  So, if I come across something I really like, I'll just buy the CD."  In other words, pay twice for the music.  One problem: DRM is already here for CDs too.]

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Between the Lines”

Topics

Disclosure

David

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?page_id=2993

Biography

David

David Berlind, formerly the executive editor of ZDNet, holds a BBA in Computer Information Systems. Prior to becoming a tech journalist in 1991, David was an IT manager that was responsible for the design and deployment of custom developed software, local and wide area networks, PC-Mainframe connectivity, corporate technology standard-setting and end-user training programs. Since then, David has served as the Director of PC Week Labs (now eWeek), editor-in-chief at Windows Sources, editorial director at Computer Shopper and general manager at Ziff-Davis.

36
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

DRM and DMCA
teqjack@... 5th Oct 2005
The premise of DRM isn't that bad - protect your files from unauthorized access.

That it is being abused by the so-called entertainment industry is unfortunate. The way it should work is that you can't play someone else's stuff, but can play - on any device capable of it - what DRM'd stuff you have bought. Because YOU would determine the DRM unlock key - the vendor's would only be used until you have signed into an app using that key to change it to your own key. A number of web apps work that way - they EMail you a password/key they generate, which you can use as is - or use to sign onto the site and change it.

But then the Atilla-the-killa of the DMCA comes in. Even though you have the key to play it now, that is only on your current equipment - in fact, often only on one of however many players you own. Any attempt to move/copy it is verboten, even if you are willing to keep it DRM'd. And un-DRM'd stuff will not play properly, if at all, anyway.

And it looks, at least according to rumor, like Microft's next op-sys may apply an MS DRM lock - MS's, not yours, though you can add yours - to ALL files, not just music and movies. "All your data are belong to us." And it will be hardware-locked as well: play a movie on a monitor - like the one you are using now - that does not have the MS-desired hardware lock and the quality will be deliberately downgraded.

Time to dig out my library card - until they go electronic too.
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
A bit puzzled.
Zinoron 5th Oct 2005
Would not an open DRM standard break both the stated and implied purpose of DRM in general? The stated purpose is to prevent piracy. But with a single standard, particularly an open one, is a single point of failure for DRMed material in regards to cracking. Piracy being an illegal activity anyway, would the pirates really care that they are violating the DMCA in cracking the DRM? The implied purpose is to infringe upon customer fair use rights in order to increase payment. If everyone was freely able to impliment the standard, how would content managers maintain control of their content?

My new phrase to stab at RIAA, DRM is fair-use infringement.
0 Votes
+ -
On open DRM standards...
dberlind 5th Oct 2005
As I've said many times already, we need a rethink on DRM before we need anything else. But, short of such a rethink, an open, royalty-free standard with which everyone complies would undo many of the evils that the status quo has afforded us. Maybe we'll get there by way of some unlikely partners (for example (the record labels are beginning to dig their heels in against Microsoft and Apple). But, even if such a standard comes, every DRMed song we buy between now and that point will make its deployment and usage that much more troublesome.

db

db
0 Votes
+ -
Well David..... I mean "duh"! (Nothing personal)
shawkins 5th Oct 2005
Not a criticism of you, but....

Did you ever expect it to ever be anything different? Microsoft, the RIAA/MPAA creeps and other corporate types will always push things as far as they possibly can, ethical or not, as long as they think they can get away with it. In this case, since the morons in Congress have not only allowed it, but seem to be encouraging it, the abuses are only going to get worse.

I rarely buy music CD's anymore and just do with what I already have. Same is true with DVD's. I expect that as time goes on, my purchases will stop completely. I won't be controlled by corporate slimebags. For those that can't seem to stop throwing your money at these weasels, well, good luck to you.

>>Not only is it being used to unfairly restrict our rights to the content that we'd otherwise have legal access to, it's being used as a market control point that stifles innovation and that could foreclose on competitors.
0 Votes
+ -
My solution
ordaj@... 5th Oct 2005
...has always been to listen to the radio. It's free. And a lot more stations to choose from. And even more through the internet.

I'm NOT buying the same encumbered music over and over again.
0 Votes
+ -
Not free...
JJ Brannon 5th Oct 2005
Those pesky commercial and reception glitches are the cost of reception. I'm not an audiophile. In fact, my music tastes are abysmal. Are they Bells really going to be up in arms for their lack of royalties for my MP3 version of "Stay Awhile"? They were already paid for my 45 copy thirty years ago.

The only reason "way back when" I downloaded MP3s was to replicate my existing favorite titles in a handy format to hear while I worked at my computer, without interrupting received phonecalls by walking over to the CD player to lower the volume. My home system was too underpowered at the time to handle the conversion from jacked-in WAV captures.

I stopped buying CDs. I own those records [if not the rights]. If I want to transfer them for my convenience, that's my business.

When I did download, I turned off output and/or emptied the default share folder.

JJB
0 Votes
+ -
Nice solution but,
dberlind 5th Oct 2005
It doesn't change the fact that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is actually stripping us of the fair use rights we already have nor does it address your appetite for other forms of digital content (text, video) which will undoubtedly share the the plight of audio/music. It's good that you're voting with your dollars. That's an important step. But what are you going to do about your rights as an American? When will you and others stand up for your rights? Or, are we just going to get steamrolled until we're back to burning books and denying our rights to open a fully stocked library. Oh, oops. We're already there (ref: Yahoo, Google).
0 Votes
+ -
Boycotting's message.
Anton Philidor 5th Oct 2005
Reductions in sales buttress the content companies' assertion that piracy is reducing their business, and stronger laws and more Federal resources must be implemented to stop it.

The problem with a boycott is, it doesn't have a positive statement associated with it.

So you're right.

But if you do complain, you're competing with a substantial industry, and by implication allying yourself with the people who support piracy intellectually.

Guilt by implication (and association) is a false premise, but one that comes easily to people whose feeling have been engaged.

Many people elected to Congress, those who care most about the issues, have had their feelings engaged.

It is a mess, you're right about that, too.
0 Votes
+ -
Your voice can be heard!
tic swayback 5th Oct 2005
The US Copyright Office is holding its third set of hearings on
anticircumvention exceptions. This is something you can
participate in by submitting, in writing, your thoughts on what
should and shouldn't be allowed as far as exemptions for
circumventing copy protection. The EFF has an article on this
process and notes:
http://sethf.com/publications/dmca-guide.php
But unlike letters to congressional offices, these public
comments are truly read by the people who make the policy.
That is in fact one of the most astonishing aspects visible in the
text of the earlier rulemaking results. The policy-maker may not
have agreed with the arguments, may in fact have dismissed
them; but there's enough referencing and mention of the
reasons for the results so as to make it clear that the viewpoints
of the public were heard. And this consideration doesn't even
require a large bribe, I mean, campaign contribution. Not all
parts of the government are equally inaccessible. It turns out
these policy-making determinations are surprisingly amenable
to informed citizens making a difference.

So if you feel strongly, join me and write a letter and let them
know your thoughts:
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
0 Votes
+ -
Not easy though..
dberlind 5th Oct 2005
Tic, thanks for the link. I plan to blog it in my goal to do something DRM-related every day (keeping my thumb on what I think to be a very important civil disobedience button). But go ahead and read all of the documents that they lead you to. The language isn't in layman's terms. For example.. it took me a while (maybe I'm lame), an exemption on a prohibition on the conduct of circumvention. Holy cow. Put it in English for me. Where's the one paragraph sound byte that says the Library of Congress is reconsidering what types of copying it should allow, here's what they are, and here's the best case scenario that can become of these deliberations. Also, here's five sample outlines you can pick from to give you a head start on presenting your opinion to the Congress." Of course, as one who is known for brevity (NOT), I should be one to talk.

db
0 Votes
+ -
David, it sounds like you have a problem with
ordaj@... 5th Oct 2005
unfettered capitalism. Unfortunately, it's not really unfetterd, it's encumbered with all sorts of rules. He who has the most cash makes the rules.
0 Votes
+ -
Socialist protectionism
tic swayback 5th Oct 2005
I'd argue that the DMCA is a hindrance to real capitalism.
Companies like Lexmark and whatever the garage door opener firm
was, are trying to use the DMCA to prevent competition. Shouldn't
a capitalist system have an open playing field where there's real
competition, and the best product/business model wins? To me,
this smacks of government intrusion, favoring one competitor over
another.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes. But it doesn't work that way.
ordaj@... 5th Oct 2005
Everyone talks a good game, but none of them want real competition.
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft the winner.
Anton Philidor 5th Oct 2005
You wrote that neither Apple's nor Microsoft's DRM works with Sonos.

The message received from Sonos responds:

For the sake of clarity on our end, you have nailed our position with Apple's "FairPlay".
...
Microsoft has assured us that they will be designing the next rendition of "PlayForSure" to be compatible with multi-room listening. When they do, we will add support for it immediately.

The message doesn't say that Sonos will add support for Apple's FairPlay.


If Sonos will not support Apple's DRM, that would be consistent with what I'm expecting to see happen next.

You've written a lot about Microsoft's "media juggernaut".

Apple has argued with the music companies, and contract negotiations have been difficult.
You also quoted someone in the music industry recently as saying he couldn't make an agreement with Apple.

Soon there will be only one 800 lb gorilla in the DRM business.

It will be Microsoft.

And then you will have the standard you want.

An open standard?
The bigger issue is whether open source software will be allowed to play content at all. The content industry is suspicious of the "community" which produces all those talented hackers.
0 Votes
+ -
History (business models) repeat themselves
dberlind 5th Oct 2005
It *is* interesting that Apple has once again kept its technology almost entirely to itself while Microsoft prefers to aggressively license in hopes of a feeding frenzy. I seem to recall that Apple was first to market before (remember the Apple IIs?). Unless Apple decides to more aggressively license, it'll could be Mac and Windows all over again. Microsoft is very focused on getting a broadly adopted foundation in place. It's head start on the portable video front (Apple is rumored to be releasing a video iPod very shortly) has played a role in lining up some partners with significant reach and market penetration (eg: cellcos). But all is not perfect for Microsoft. For example, the Register's Tony Smith just reported (by way of the fee-based Wall St. Journal) that talks have broken down between Microsoft and several major record labels.

db
0 Votes
+ -
Yes.
Anton Philidor 5th Oct 2005
The content companies are also following their history of resisting a new distribution technology that will eventually make substantial profits for them.

Apple does want insular control while Microsoft attempts to obtain the mass market. You're right.

But in this case the market is not the public. It's the content companies. The ability to succeed is not based on the public response, which will at best be neutral. (And that neutrality will have to be retained by continuous careful tweaking of the restrictions.)

Apple definitely has a difficult relationship with the content companies.
On the pricing issue, they're also probably right. The internet appears to be a volume business responsive to price.
But which side is right makes no difference because the buyer is in full control when contracts have to be negotiated. There is no real competing source.

Do you have a link to the article about the dispute between Microsoft and the content companies? That's significant.
Thanks for the time saved.
0 Votes
+ -
oops (doh).. here's the link
dberlind 5th Oct 2005
meant to provide that before...http://go.theregister.com/feed/http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/04/ms_quits_music_licensing_talks/
0 Votes
+ -
That article doesn't seem to be on topic.
Anton Philidor 5th Oct 2005
Here's a quote:
Microsoft has been expected to begin offering a music subscription service alongside those already offered by the likes of Napster, Yahoo!, Virgin Digital, HMV and others. According to the WSJ sources, now that licensing talks are over, the service won't be launched.

The music services wanted too much money per subscriber/month.


But what does this have to do with Microsoft as a DRM provider?
0 Votes
+ -
sure it is,..
dberlind 5th Oct 2005
what good is your DRM if none of the content providers want to use it? Microsoft needs the content deals to penetrate the market with its media technologies.

db
0 Votes
+ -
Still there is a HUGE difference between now and then
Laff 5th Oct 2005
MS got it's blessing/start in the OS world from IBM. Back in that
day IBM was considered well the GOD of the business/tech world
and what ever IBM said was LAW! That has changed for IBM
considerably and many people tend to forget how it was way
back when.

There is no such God like entity for Music and it's distribution at
this present time. In fact I suppose I could make the arguement
that Apple is the closest thing to that type of being now..but I
will not cause even with Apple's status in the world of music
downloads she still does not have the cache that IBM once had.

So now it should be far more interesting to see how this batle
plays out...MS with no IBM blessing (basically handing the PC
world to MS on a silve platter) One has to admit that in and of
itself is a big help to any company. Also something Apple did
not do with her PC's that she is doing with the iPod and iTunes is
finding partners such as Moto, and car companies and others.

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
Jim, the controlling "entity" for content...
Anton Philidor 5th Oct 2005
... is the content companies as a group. If they anoint a single DRM standard, that is the standard. Their authority is more complete than IBM's at the company's most powerful.
0 Votes
+ -
But is not Apple currently at least the controlling entity
Laff 5th Oct 2005
for tech/electronic distribution and does that not make the other
entity uncomfortable. IBM did not face anything like that at least in
the begining until she handed MS the control and found she had
created a monster....heh heh heh.

So the sit is still different for there is an ultimate power tug o war
in the making.

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
If the content companies refuse to license content to Apple...
Anton Philidor 5th Oct 2005
... then no one will be able to buy much to play on his iPod.

The content companies can use other services to distribute their material. And the public will follow, eventually.

The content companies have alternate distributors. Apple does not have alternate suppliers.
0 Votes
+ -
Maybe....but what if Apple uses its rather large cash
Laff 5th Oct 2005
reserves to become a distributor of Music and start buying up
contracts and other indepedant labels? There is more than one
way to skin a cat in this game. Besides there is the public
relationship boon doggle that would arise if the current
distributors did what you say..and they know it. Finally who says
that Apple might not pull away a distrubutor or two while
forming her own distribution company in the process. After all
every individual company looks to gain an edge over the
other...that is always one of the fundamental rules of business
and Apple just might be able to entice one or two because well
they have the juice at this time.

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
I like the public relations angle here....We the music
Laff 5th Oct 2005
distributors have stopped allowing Apple to sell out song at the
absurd low price of 99 cents to you the millions and millions of
peolpe who have purchased their iPod products and will now
demand that you re-invest your hard earned money in other
solutions that will cost you more over the long run. This I want to
see....:)

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
Alternative strategies
tic swayback 5th Oct 2005
---If the content companies refuse to license content to
Apple...---

If the RIAA were to do this:
1) it would probably be the death of the online music market.
The vast majority of people purchasing own iPods. If the music
no longer works on their iPods, no one buys online, the market
is dead.

2) it could potentially backfire against the RIAA and be a huge
boost for independent music. Right now online music accounts
for 6% of music sales. Take away the RIAA product and put
Apple's marketing savvy behind indie bands, and maybe all the
iPod owners start buying non-RIAA music. Could be a huge
boost for non-corporate musicians.

3) Let's say the RIAA dumps Apple. The iPod is perfectly capable
of playing WMA files. What would stop Apple from just licensing
Microsoft's DRM?
0 Votes
+ -
These people sue 12 year old honor students...
Anton Philidor 5th Oct 2005
... and threaten grandmothers with huge fines if they don't turn in their grandchildren.
In fact, that is the basis of their proud public campaign against file swapping.

Do you think a commercial dispute in which customers will switch to services more amenable to music industry diktats will bother them?

I wonder if it's better to push this while the iPods are still popular and Apple will lose vital sales, or wait until iPods are less popular and customers quicker and happier to switch?
Decisions, decisions...
0 Votes
+ -
Anton...Ever hear the old saying
Laff 5th Oct 2005
The straw that breaks the camels back? heh heh heh....I think even
for the RIAA there will come a time where the push it too far. Then
as the lady who said "Let them eat cake" found out people just
might loose their heads over this...:)

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
Timing
tic swayback 5th Oct 2005
---In fact, that is the basis of their proud public campaign
against file swapping. ---

Which is about to be done in, and cost the RIAA a large amount
of cash, if the case in Oregon goes the way I expect it to go. It
would be another black eye (both in the view of the public and
the government) if the RIAA was demanding new stricter laws,
and at the same time publicly killing off the one legal alternative
to swapping that has had any success.

---Do you think a commercial dispute in which customers will
switch to services more amenable to music industry diktats will
bother them?---

I think they have a massive amount of arrogance, and still think
they're able to dictate things like this. I also think they're wrong,
but wouldn't be surprised to see them try (and take multiple hits
for the reasons listed above, and in my previous post). Serves
them right.

---I wonder if it's better to push this while the iPods are still
popular and Apple will lose vital sales, or wait until iPods are
less popular and customers quicker and happier to switch?
Decisions, decisions...---

I don't think it would hurt iPod sales if they did it right away.
Online sales are only 6% of total music sales, so the vast majority
of songs that are on iPods were purchased as cd's, or
downloaded from p2p. It would certainly give a big boost to p2p
usage. Waiting might be smarter, but the danger there is that
you're further cementing the idea of using the iTMS at 99 cents a
song into the minds of the public.
0 Votes
+ -
Direct competition
tic swayback 5th Oct 2005
---The message doesn't say that Sonos will add support for
Apple's FairPlay.---

The reason for this lack of comment is that Apple has made no
efforts and shows no signs toward widely licensing FairPlay. I
don't doubt for a second that Sonos would jump aboard if they
were offered a deal.

But they won't, and the reason is that their product is a direct
competitor for Apple's AirTunes and AirPort Express product.
Apple is selling their own system for playing digital files over a
stereo system, and they apparently see no business advantage in
giving up the keys to their system to Sonos (or Roku or Slim
Devices). Those three companies make devices that are vastly
superior to Apple's Airtunes. Airtunes has miserably stagnated
for years, they haven't upgraded the hardware or the software,
or even bothered to deal with the constant dropouts that most
of their customers are seeing. So instead of advancing
technology and creating better user experiences, we're stuck
with second rate technology as Apple protects their empire.
0 Votes
+ -
If Apple won't allow other companies' products...
Anton Philidor 5th Oct 2005
... access to FairPlay protected material, then Apple remains an 800 lb gorilla only so long as its products keep selling well.

Every expensive fad fades eventually, and as the iPod goes so goes FairPlay.

When its gone there'll be only one 800 lb gorilla. That will be Micorosft, which is used to being the 800 lb gorilla in a category.
0 Votes
+ -
The iPod adapts and changes so fast it will be hard
Laff 5th Oct 2005
for her to grow stale I tend to think. Also since portaable music
started with the portable radio and melded into tape recorders
and then the Sony Walkman I tend to think this is a rather long
fad if a fad at all.

Finally see my other points listted above...While this fight does
have some similarities to the past it also has some key
differences that might prove key.

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
Tipping point
tic swayback 5th Oct 2005
I think you'll eventually see a point where 1) iPod sales have slowed
and 2) online music sales have grown greatly. At that point, there
will be financial incentive for Apple to start licensing FairPlay, as
the licenses will begin to pay more than the product sales
themselves.
0 Votes
+ -
In other words, "stifling competition."
dberlind 5th Oct 2005
This is precisely the monoopolitic behavior I'm talking about. If you control the market's underlying technology, then you get to be God and decide who gets to play, and who doesn't.
0 Votes
+ -
I think what most people fail to realize is this is why
Laff 5th Oct 2005
things are the way they are currently. Apple knows that "IF" she
gives up the fight the Music distributors and or MS will claim the
throne. Right now there are three battling it out for the possition
of diety. MS, the music distributors, and Apple. The problem
being even "IF" one of more wanted to be more open and giving
(which I tend to doubt) all that would do is hand the throne to the
other guy and those who loose will become surfs to the new king.

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
Yep!
tic swayback 5th Oct 2005
It's particularly frustrating, because Airtunes has great potential,
but in reality, it kind of sucks. You can only stream music to one
other point (meaning you can't have music playing in more than
one room at a time). You can't play music on the computer that's
doing the streaming. It's ridiculous and way behind what Sonos,
Roku and SlimDevices are offering. Yet there's apparently no
pressure on Apple to keep up with these companies, as they
haven't even touched the product since its release over a year and
a half ago.
0 Votes
+ -
DRM and DMCA
teqjack@... 5th Oct 2005
The premise of DRM isn't that bad - protect your files from unauthorized access.

That it is being abused by the so-called entertainment industry is unfortunate. The way it should work is that you can't play someone else's stuff, but can play - on any device capable of it - what DRM'd stuff you have bought. Because YOU would determine the DRM unlock key - the vendor's would only be used until you have signed into an app using that key to change it to your own key. A number of web apps work that way - they EMail you a password/key they generate, which you can use as is - or use to sign onto the site and change it.

But then the Atilla-the-killa of the DMCA comes in. Even though you have the key to play it now, that is only on your current equipment - in fact, often only on one of however many players you own. Any attempt to move/copy it is verboten, even if you are willing to keep it DRM'd. And un-DRM'd stuff will not play properly, if at all, anyway.

And it looks, at least according to rumor, like Microft's next op-sys may apply an MS DRM lock - MS's, not yours, though you can add yours - to ALL files, not just music and movies. "All your data are belong to us." And it will be hardware-locked as well: play a movie on a monitor - like the one you are using now - that does not have the MS-desired hardware lock and the quality will be deliberately downgraded.

Time to dig out my library card - until they go electronic too.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix