From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0248_01C60870.F53E0680
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   I don't know why you are changing the topic to DRM.  Maybe apple's =
proprietary protocol includes or mandates DRM.  The UPnP media server = and
rendered protocols I mentioned earlier do not.

   I thought apple only used its non-licensable DRM with the itunes =
store.  If you would like to start an discussion comparing commercial = DRM
schemes, go ahead.  It has no relevance here.  If you do I suggest = you
start with some facts beyond your silly assertion.  For example, = identify
several sources of DRM protected content, serval consumers of = this, and
examples of the restriction differences you are claiming that = are not due
to the publishers authored license.

Rich

  "Don Hills"  wrote in message =
news:qFPrDtgaX+qR092yn{at}attglobal.net...
  In article , "Rich"  wrote:
  >
  >   The apple product is not what I was describing as proprietary.  =
The
  >apple protocol is to what I was referring.

  So was I (I've left it quoted below). My perception of the difference
  between Apple's DRM and Microsoft's DRM is that the Apple DRM allows
  anything not explicitly prohibited, where the Microsoft DRM prohibits
  anything not explicitly allowed.

  --=20
  Don Hills    (dmhills at attglobaldotnet)     Wellington, New Zealand

------=_NextPart_000_0248_01C60870.F53E0680
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   I don't
know why you are =
changing the=20
topic to DRM.  Maybe apple's proprietary protocol includes or = mandates=20
DRM.  The UPnP media server and rendered protocols I mentioned =
earlier do=20
not.
 
   I thought
apple only used =
its=20
non-licensable DRM with the itunes store.  If you would like to =
start an=20
discussion comparing commercial DRM schemes, go ahead.  It has no
= relevance=20
here.  If you do I suggest you start with some facts beyond your = silly=20
assertion.  For example, identify several sources of DRM protected
= content,=20
serval consumers of this, and examples of the restriction differences = you are=20
claiming that are not due to the publishers authored =
license.
 
Rich
 

  "Don Hills" <black.hole.4.spam{at}gmail.commailto:black.hole.4.spam{at}gmail.com">black.hole.4.spam{at}gmail.com
A>>=20
  wrote in message news:qFPrDtgaX+qR092yn{at}attg=
lobal.net...In=20
  article <43aca7b0$1{at}w3.nls.net>,">mailto:43aca7b0$1{at}w3.nls.net">43aca7b0$1{at}w3.nls.net>,
=
"Rich"=20
  <{at}>
wrote:>>   The apple
product is not =
what I=20
  was describing as proprietary.  The>apple
protocol is to =
what I=20
  was referring.So was I (I've left it quoted below). My =
perception of=20
  the differencebetween Apple's DRM and Microsoft's DRM is that the =
Apple=20
  DRM allowsanything not explicitly prohibited, where the Microsoft =
DRM=20
  prohibitsanything not explicitly allowed.--
Don=20
  Hills    (dmhills at =
attglobaldotnet)    =20
  Wellington, New Zealand

------=_NextPart_000_0248_01C60870.F53E0680--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5