144,000 Treos? Yuck. That's mega-gross.

(subtle?)

Is that a White German Shepherd Dog? We have one, too, and she also acts like a big fuzzy mediator when our son is melting down a bit. He always has a laugh when she's around, chasing her tail or doing tricks.

Just weird to see a picture of my dog with someone else's baby! ;)

"Microsoft (and PC manufacturers, for that matter) have never promoted their products as devices to be used for copyright infringement and are at no risk of liability due to that ruling." Grokster explicitly stated that their product was not to be used for piracy, and they still lost. While your interpretation may be sound for those of us "in the know" (technology-wise), a judge is going to say, "If you didn't try to stop people from pirating software, you're responsible for it." While I agree, it's a lot like blaming Ford for a car accident caused by a drunk driver, if Ford ever WAS blamed, they would be within their rights to install a breathalyzer-conditional ignition kill circuit. I also support any legislation that can succeed in empowering consumers with the rights to digital media they deserve. If only our system of government actually worked to represent its people, this bill would be law by now. As it is, Hollywood has more money than you or I do, and the political machine is lubricated with dollars. The fact of the matter at hand is: MS is not the bad guy here, Hollywood/MPAA/RIAA/USGOV is. Let's place the blame where it belongs.

Nobody has answered my question: What restrictive software/devices, that are either out now, or will be released in the future, violate your rights, and in what specific way? I can't really seem to find any, and I'm a heavy HEAVY digital media user. If anything, the fact that there ISN'T a protected media path violates my rights to intercept and display the HD signal brought into my house by my cable company using my computer (slightly tongue-in-cheek, obviously). Re: SCOTUS: "We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties" - Justice David H. Souter, in a decision in MGM Studios, et.al. versus Grokster, June 27, 2005.

If the bill becomes law, yes, it would seem to allow users with the ability to circumvent DRM to do so for the purposes of fair use. That bill probably won't become law, though, not in its current form. If it did, you ask "what's the point in creating a secure channel[...]". It was recently held in the SCOTUS that companies can be made responsible if their technology is used to enable software/media piracy. Media/electronics companies have every right to limit their potential liability should Hollywood's lawyers come knocking, don't they?

"taking away the consumer's current ability to make back-ups and transcoded versions of that media for their own personal use" Ability <> right.

There are lots of obvious things that get patented, but that's not the point, is it? While, agreed, current patent laws are in dire need of a makeover, MS is absolutely playing by the rules here. If it was some no-named consultant "little guy" in Boise that got the patent, most people would be cheering for the guy, hoping that he gets a piece of "big ol' Apple".

You're quoting Wikipedia as a source? DRM technology enforces the license a purchaser agrees to when the purchaser LICENSES the content in question. It's not fair use when your license specifically forbids it. If you don't want to live with the license imposed by iTunes Music Store or Napster, go buy a CD. If the CD has protection on it, don't buy from that label, and if others also boycott that label, they'll quickly get the idea: consumers won't put up with unrealistic restrictions on their media licenses. So much of this is about what you OWN. You OWN only what you produce yourself; everything else, you license. Fair Use policies were in place well before fair use could actually be enforced, and is essentially the "honor system" approach to license enforcement. Now, with DRM-protected media, you're allowed your fair use (I can burn music I buy from iTMS or Napster, I can listen to the digital versions of those tracks on multiple machines and portable media players) and nothing more (I can't give others copies of the music tracks that I license). So what's the problem? Really? How are your actual rights being violated? Do you think you have the right to steal content from record labels or motion picture studios? Of course not, and DRM stops you from doing that (or tries to, at any rate). Do you have the right to view it on multiple devices? If your license allows you to, DRM allows you do. If you don't agree with the license, don't buy it. This boils down to people getting pissed that they're no longer going to be able to cheat and steal, that's what it boils down to. And people like me, who want to be able to watch and record HDTV directly off my cable provider's signal on to my computer, have to suffer with standard definition. I welcome further comments, of course. Preferably one with actual arguments and not (continued) vague references to pseudo-fact.

As for the 2003 date, I must've been thinking about iTMS, which was introduced in April of 2003. Thanks again for clearing that up for me. :)

Thanks for the info, but the point remains. :) The patent application predates Apple's public use of the technology. :)