RE: [MLUG] A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection

["Fallert, Adam Christian" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> Microsoft is doing this so they can own the entire distribution path
for "premium content".

Ok, let the flaming begin, but I just don't see Microsoft's intentions
as that nefarious.  I think in this case it is M$ legal pointing the
company in this direction to avoid face offs with MPAA and the RIAA.
Just last weekend I read an article I found on gizmodo.com that quoted
Bill Gates as say "If it were up to me, we would not be putting content
protection in Vista."  Of course that is carefully stated and pretty
open ended so it could really have any meaning.

-- Adam

-----Original Message-----
From: EMAIL:PROTECTED
[mailto:EMAIL:PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pottinger, Hardy
J.
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 4:10 PM
To: MLUG Members
Subject: RE: [MLUG] A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection

> Perhaps an iPod owner on this list could verify or negate that rumor.

Incorrect. Just about any non-corrupt mp3 will work on an iPod.

Now, eAudiobooks, those won't play on an iPod.
http://lso.umsystem.edu/~hardy/article/8/what-do-you-mean-i-cant-listen-
to-an-eaudiobook-on-my-ipod

But, back to the topic, I really don't see Apple going down this path
happily. Microsoft is doing this so they can own the entire distribution
path for "premium content". And in the process, create enough collateral
damage to ensure consumers have to buy into it.

But Apple's already in that position now with music (and mostly on the
merits of their product, not through some draconian hardware spec). They
are starting to dictate terms to the content providers.

Interesting times. Lucky us. :-\

--Hardy

_______________________________________________
members mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members

_______________________________________________
members mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members