All i have been hearing about the last few days is how hardware drm is bad. My view of it would be it is not bad. My experience with DRM has been good. I purchase music from MSN music and have no issues with the DRM. I can copy it to any portable device
(phone or my gateway mp3/wma player) , burn cds ( though no need to ) and play it on 5 machines. 5 machines allows music to be shared on 5 different computers, more then enough. I prefer wma or wmv over any other format as they have better quality.
In order for hardware to enforce DRM the media must be DRMed to begin with. So all the illegal content will still be usable while publishers issue DRM content. Who should have a problem with DRM content? The people used to ripping off content providers. I'm
sure DRM content will have pretty liberal rights like MSN music has or else they would not like the MSN music service for delivering music.
My only bad experience with DRM has been the people who cannot implement it as good as Microsoft, aka FullAudio. Formatting your machine with FullAudio licenses is a pita.
I am a firm beleiver in "monopolies" being good when it comes to software. I never enjoyed having to worry about Netscape vs. IE in the browser war days. Netscape never supported the good stuff. Integration between products tightly can only happen under one
roof. If this wasn't true using linux wouldn't be such a pita with the thousand mediocre software projects. All applications that integrate well are made under one roof. For example, office suites, browser/email suites.
Anyways, the point is I have full trust Microsoft knows what it is doing and i'll still be buying from them till the day i die.