Another comment on my Palladium/DRM post below.

Wired says the RIAA denies "direct involvement" with Palladium research and development.  That, too, is disingenuous.  The entertainment oligopoly is the customer for Microsoft Palladium.  They're the reason why Microsoft is going down this research path in the first place.  It is only the entertainment oligopoly's stubborn refusal to update their outdated business model for the twenty-first century that necessitates a system like Palladium.

You don't need Palladium to sell plain MP3s to your customers at a fair price.  It's only necessary when you want to overcharge them and/or steal away the fair use and first sale rights granted them under copyright law.

4:51:12 PM   

Palladium: Safe or Security Flaw?. Microsoft's new project could offer virus protection, control over personal information, even spam blocking. Or maybe it's a giant boondoggle. By Paul Boutin. [Wired News]

A decent article on Palladium.  They don't focus on DRM to the exclusion of everything else, but they don't neglect it, either.  One quote at the end of the article caught my eye: "[AMD employee and Palladium advocate Geoffrey] Strongin and [Microsoft employee Peter] Biddle are already downplaying the digital rights management angle to their work. 'Palladium is not DRM; DRM is not Palladium,' Biddle said. 'DRM happens on top of Palladium.'"

That statement is disingenuous at best.  Palladium is necessary and sufficient for software DRM to work.  Although they've tried, the entertainment oligopoly hasn't yet been able to take away the rights granted you by copyright law.  Palladium lays the infrastructure that enables them to do so.  No felt-tip marker's gonna break Palladium-based DRM.

4:25:39 PM