Microsoft Licensing Fee Intended To Reduce Hobbyists 355
BokLM writes "Microsoft's Amir Majidimehr, Corporate VP of the Windows Digital Media Division, explained at a DRM conference in London why they require a license fee from device makers." From the article: "According to Amir, the fee is not intended to recoup the expenses Microsoft incurred in developing their DRM, or to turn a profit. The intention is to reduce the number of licensees to a manageable level, to lock out 'hobbyists' and other entities that Microsoft doesn't want to have to trouble itself with."
Re:Things haven't changed since 1976... (Score:5, Informative)
'll paraphrase the above for you in fewer words.
Interesting. I don't see one instance of Billy G mentioning:
What I do see is a screed claiming that:
So how is that paraphrasing again?
Come on. I'm not fan of Billy G, but you can't honestly claim that the paragraph above says what you say it does.
Re:Things haven't changed since 1976... (Score:5, Informative)
This is not an MS apology (Score:3, Informative)
Now the major difference is these distributors have competition, but the only competetion to protected WMA/V DRM is Apple's FairPlay, which only Apple gets to use.
Also realize that, in effect, this is exactly what the DVD-CCA does. Only issues liscences to people who agree to play by their restrictive terms.
On a certain level MS probably also believes that their DRM will be cracked more easily/quickly if smaller, less "ethical" coders could get their hands on it. But it didn't do the DVD people much good. IIRC, DVD Jon was able to crack CSS after the cypher was anonymously leaked to him
Re:Read his entire letter... (Score:3, Informative)
He doesn't say he "is the best at doing it" - he says he has put a lot of time and effort in.
He doesn't say that "Free software is bad because he can't make money" - he says that he is not in the business of offering free software and the lack of sales is dissuading him further development work.
Hope that helps. It isn't that hard to comprehend.
Need to validate drivers (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Another one? (Score:3, Informative)
Trusted Network Connect (Score:3, Informative)
There's competition now from the free software world.
Not if free software can't boot. Have you tried to run free software on a video game console without making modifications that are illegal in at least one major developed country? Even if free software is allowed to boot, it is likely not to be able to get an IP address because all the residential high-speed ISPs use Trusted Network Connect and only "trust" specific unmodified Microsoft and Apple operating systems. It could very well happen by 2015 [slashdot.org].
The developers will just go where they're welcome.
And if that no longer includes the Internet, then what happens?
Re:Remember the Microchannel? (Score:2, Informative)
Remember: if your new tech is a major improvment, you can break compatibility with some things (e.g., your new kind of slot doesn't have to support the old kind of card in it) if you keep compatibility in other areas (in the case of PCI, BUS-level compatibility with having the other kind of slots on the board). It's breaking compatibility with everything at once that's fatal.
Of course, if your new tech is only a minor improvement, then the backward-compatibility requirements are more demanding.