I've been going off on Microsoft's DRM (PVP-OPM) for awhile now, and this morning's news from Boing-Boing is just icing on the cake. Their rationale for why they need to implement things this way? It's just too hard to keep up:

A Microsoft spokesman has described their DRM licensing scheme as a system for reducing the number of device vendors to a manageable number, so that the company doesn't have to oversee too many developers.

Oh, but it gets better:

The bombshell was Amir's explanation of the reason that his employer charges fees to license its DRM. 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 licensors to a manageable level, to lock out "hobbyists" and other entities that Microsoft doesn't want to have to trouble itself with.

The specific quote, according to this post:

"We don't want this technology to be available to every hobbyist. We need to keep the number of licensees down to a manageable number. We charge a license fee to keep the number of people we have to deal with down to a level we can handle."

So those of us with older devices and content we paid for? We just have to suck it up. This is not an *cough* upgrade *cough* that MS is pushing with Vista. Forget all the happy talk from Scoble; there's not a whole lot of beneficial new stuff here; that all got jettisoned back when Vista was well over a year late. The interesting aspect is what they decided to keep: updated file system? Nah. DRM that hoses off people with existing display devices and legally owned content? Yeah, that needs to stay in.

Sure, Apple has DRM included in the iPod/iTunes system - they aren't a white knight. On the other hand, they aren't telling me to bend over either.

Microsoft can take their shiny Vista and (insert nasty comment here). I'll stay with XP, and make sure my new x86 hardware isn't running Vista.

More info here.