That's certainly why DRM has become a bad word. All I'm saying is the article seems to imply this is somehow an admission that they were wrong. When in fact i

That's certainly why DRM has become a bad word. All I'm saying is the article seems to imply this is somehow an admission that they were wrong. When in fact it's just the opposite. It's setting the stage for it's eventual return under a new name if they should ever feel the need to bring it back. Because if they do bring it back part of the push will be "we realize DRM was bad but this new thing fixes the problems." In order to make that statement they need to disown DRM now.