On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:49:12 +0100, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>____/ The Ghost In The Machine on Tuesday 11 September 2007 19:03 : \____
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, yttrx
>> <yttrx@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:53:53 GMT
>> <BKzFi.1317$vq6.688@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> Phil <me@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/09/microsoft_appli.html
>>>>
>>>> The article does say it is an indelible digital watermark, so it looks
>>>> like the headline was meant to attract attention. However, it also
>>>> describes the concept of a player that will refuse to play titles
>>>> without a watermark.
>>>>
>>>> Philip
>>>
>>> They called their last two DRMs uncrackable as well.
>>>
>>> Whatever.
>>
>> Indeed...since someone will simply go after the weak link,
>> namely, the player's checking code.
>>
>> Whoops.
>You wrote a long essay about that before. :-)
>Well, FWIW, I've just been seeing online shops whose selling point is no DRM.
>You can't compete with DRM-free choices. You just can't. See how Amazon's (?)
>sales jumped about 300% when they moved to MP3 downloads.
one word:
tunebite
|
|
