Wired seems to be a little soft on DRM these days; the recent Wired spin-off, Wired Test, featured page on page of reviews of music players, media PCs, and PVRs with hardly a mention of the fact that all of these devices were fundamentally crippleware, and all controlled by entertainment companies who can and do arbitrarily remove functionality from them after they have entered the marketplace, so that the device that you've bought does less today than it did when you opened the box. If you're publishing a consumer-advice magazine, it seems like this is the kind of thing you should be noting for your readers: "If you buy this, your investment will be contingent on the ongoing goodwill of some paranoid Warners exec whose astrologer has told him that your pause button will put him out of business and must be disabled."
Hmmm, "soft". Well, in one sense he's right: we're not following the EFF's idealistic line on DRM. This isn't because of journalistic impartiality. We, too, are unashamedly activist on issues we believe in, and DRM abuse is one of them. It's just that we take a more pragmatic stance to serve a more mainstream audience. (We are also a commercial magazine, not a pressure group.)