With each passing day, I draw closer to the extreme anti-DRM view, such as is represented by Defective by Design. Still, even in my more moderate days, serving an application patch as a security fix would be considered pretty low. Regardless of the relative (lack of) merits of DRM, they should call a duck, a duck. If they are going to change WMA, they should accurately describe the patch as applying specifically to WMA. Do they think anyone who catches them at this is going to honestly thank them?
Bruce, as always, explores the issue much more deeply. This is another case that reinforces the discussion around DRM being purely about protecting existing business models, versus serving consumer need. The comparison between the sub-optimal release schedule of legitimate security fixes, a definite consumer focused activity, and making sure Microsoft doesn’t offend any of its heavy DRM licensees really drives the point home quite clearly.