Pheeeew. DRM (Digital rights management) has been on the market now for quite some time, but apart from the content industry, nobody likes it.
Why is that ?
- Worst of all, the product "DRM" doesn't deliver anything 'positive' to the user. By having it, you get more hassles and less control than you do by not having it (hence my avoidance of anything that only smells like containing DRM).
- Almost as bad: "DRM" can not be touched - sounds silly but imo is a major drawback. How can a product like DRM be anyone's friend when it's not controllable ? How do I know how much of that thing is in my PCs ? There is no real control panel, no statistics about how much content i was only able to listen to THANKS to DRM. There is nothing positive communicated to the user. and that when every marketing department emphasizes on User Experience.
- Content companies have pretty much (and one could really think deliberatly) ruined their reputation. and it's exactly them who push DRM into Vista. From broken CDs, hidden root kits that cause Windows machines to become (even more) unsecure to buggy drivers being installed silently, little good has been heard in that area recently.
Obviously, Microsoft had to cope with DRM in some why while developing Windows Vista. The rumours around might be true (but definitely help to make customers rather hesitant) or false, or both, but they don't help to boost Vista sales, and show how difficult the whole DRM discussion is.
It's a shame really. Vista is beautiful and i'd consider installing it on my PCs too, but DRM is the one best reason not to do so. And getting facts about what is in Vista and what is not consists of asking two big brothers: Microsoft and the content/music/movie industry. Now do you trust any of those two to deliver a true answer ?
Blog discussion about conflicting DRM & Vista 'facts'
