Slashdot Mirror
Digital Restrictions Management in Office 11
conaone writes "According to a Microsoft Watch, there is a feature in the leaked Office 2003 called "Information Rights Management." A lot more control over documents with this... the story says: "Microsoft is threading DRM throughout the Office 2003 suite, allowing restrictions to be set on Outlook mail messages, as well as on Word, Excel and PowerPoint documents. Using "permission templates," document authors can determine restriction policies to be applied to entire categories of documents, according to Microsoft's site." Here's a link to the whole story."
What's going to happen when people don't update? Or only a small portion update and people keep complaining to them that they can't read their documents? Or they have to down-save their documents to share with the world making the DRM garbage null and void?
For this to really don't don't we all really just have to switch? I know I'm not going to allow this release in my company...
I just bought a new laptop, 12 Inch Powerbook..
I sat and debated, can I live without MS Office. I then came to the decision. Open Office + Keynote was all I needed for my needs.
Are you all avoiding MS Office? What do you use instead?
I will not buy DRM.
Rob
Not all DRM is about P2P.
Wah!
And this is bad how, exactly?
Let me guess: When it's called PGP it's good, when they call it Microsoft Something Something it's bad?
Breakfast served all day!
This is pretty neat development, anyway you look at it.
/.'ers will see DRM and Microsoft in the same sentence and immediately start crying foul?
My question is how many
My notes, my diary, my internal memos, or anything else produced in Office wants to be free. You may want to see the memo that says that 3M knows they are causing giant, man eating three eyed frogs because of the waste they are dumping, but it isn't you right to see it.
On another note, if this works properly (big if) you will know that the next Halloween document is a fake.
another good reason why you should support open office if you already dont
I can think of a couple of uses already for this technology that would be extremely useful in my office:
;)
-- Restrict printing of documents that are sensitive
-- Don't allow company wide e-mail without administrative approval
and most importantly, don't allow my boss to see that I'm calling him a dick in an e-mail
Technology like this does have a GOOD purpose as well as negative uses. This could be a really useful office tool.
--The space between my ears was intentionally left blank--
I know that there'll be plenty of snide negative comments about this, but I figured, what the hell.
I think that generally this is a good thing. Every company I've worked at has created copious piles of "internal only" type documents (electronicly that is). Making sure that these documents either stay internal, or don't go beyond those people externally that you give them to is always a hassle and pretty much impossible to do currently. Right now you have to depend on the "good faith" of your employees or those you've forwarded documents to and have agreements with (e.g. non-disclosures). Having a solution that makes controlling this information a bit easier could be useful.
Now before people start getting all in a tizzy, I'm not saying that Microsofts implementation will be any good or that it won't have problems and cause more trouble than it's worth. I'm just saying that the concept is worthwhile and shouldn't just be dismissed because it's being foisted by the "Evil Empire" or you can think of a dozen ways around it.
I can't imagine how many people are going to screw around with this feature and lock themselves out of their own word file
This is no different than allowing anyone to even simply password protect their files.
Although it may be good for a small percentage of people, how is this going to affect John Q. Trailertrash who likes to fiddle with new functions?
That's the point, it's not designed for JQT, it's primarily for corp. users. If little Johnny wants to add DRM to his homework then more power to him, but that is not the audience that M$ has in mind. Now Johnnie's teacher who's creating a test, now that's a different story.
Thing with View Only is that, while one can't print or edit the document, or even copy it for someone else, what stops said person from writing notes on a sheet of paper and avoiding the DRM aspect of the document? What stops the person from just remembering what he read and repeating it later, or dictating word for word into a micro cassette recorder? The only thing DRM is going to be usefull for is preventing a direct print, copy/paste, direct copy, and locations of viewing (assumed). If you send said information to a semi-trustworthy source, the information itself might still find it's way out.
Of course your are forgetting the most anoying thing about being in IT.... "You know some thing about computers, can explain why I can't print this e-mail" I can see the stupid questions pileing up now.
(Does it look like I work at for the help-desk?)
Users are like bacteria, each one creating a tiny problem until the host dies.
It will be interesting to see how
If explained as "future versions of an office productivity suite will contain easy-to-use capabilities to ensure the privacy and secrecy of the user's documents, allowing them to be exchanged only with select others and safe from prying eye", we would all shout Hallelujah!
However, if it's "the ugly black hand of Digital Rights Management has now extended from our televisions and stereos to our very own documents", we shout "boo-hiss"!
I mean, really. Information wants to be free, as long as it's not the business plan for my new multi-zillion-dollar startup that wants to be free. Or is it that Information wants to be free unless it is John Ashcroft that's doing the looking?
Don't get me wrong, I'm as suspicious of Microsoft and of DRM as the next guy, but does everyone think "DRM" (or whatever we call it)is as bad when it's *your* (private) information as when it's a plausibly mass-distributed movie or song?
gnetwerker
Wrong. The majority of /. readers use Windows. Besides, even for those of us who don't use any Microsoft products at all, it's always good to know. Keep in mind slashdot is News for nerds, not News for Linux users.
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
Once this hits the market, anyone trying to sell software which can bypass the access control mechanisms of Word to read copyrighted information (it's all copyrighted) from within a protected document will be strung-up as a DMCA criminal.
This feature will not be offered as a part of Open Office.
It's kinda like those "Last gas for 50 miles" signs you see outside the overpriced gas station in the middle of the desert. Here's your chance. Miss it, and there's no turning back.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Well, you see, there's this thing called Antitrust law in America, which makes it illegal for a corporation to use their leverage in the market to destroy the competition. If Microsoft creates a proprietary, secure format that only Office users can read without having to hack it, they, having the largest office software marketshare in the United States will in fact be using their power as a monopoly to bludgeon projects like OpenOffice out of existence. This isn't an issue of whether or not they have to support another company's software, it's an issue of them using their already monsterous marketshare to keep other companies from competing with them by further building up their already giant barriers to entry into the market of office software. In case you don't recall, Microsoft has already been convicted once of Antitrust violations, but because of Bushy's boys they got a slap on the wrist which they totally ignored anyways. I truly hope a democratic President gets elected in 2004 and has the justice department smack M$ down with another lawsuit that hopefully will actually have some teeth to it.
Think about it:
* It makes the chances of writing an office suite that is compatible with MS Office 2003 almost impossible. I bet the DMCA will make it illegal to reverse engineer the crypto you'll find this new IRM technology uses.
* It boosts Windows Server sales, since this technology will require Windows Server. UNIX-based file servers need not apply; they aren't IRM-enabled (and not allowed to be, thanks to the DCMA).
* It'll force users to upgrade Office. Yes, Office 97 already does way more than you need already. Too bad. You'll need to keep your version compatible with all the IRM-laden .doc, .xls, .pps, etc. files that'll be flying around.
* The PHB's of the world will eat this technology up without realizing the consequences.
Microsoft is brilliant. Fucking brilliant. I thought they were starting to lose it, but they're not. They've found new and amazing ways to leverage their monopoly; except, this time, it's not their OS monopoly. It's their office suite monopoly. My hat is off to you, Microsoft.
Corrections welcome.
-Teckla
I've been thinking of this for awhile now. I've come to the conclusion that this is (at least partly) a method to prevent the inter-operation of competing OSs. Microsoft realizes that their proprietory document format isn't going to keep vendors from interoperating, not in the long run. Open Office has already made significant strides in reading Office format documents. Breaking compatibility in the format requires breaking compatibility in their Office products as well, which isn't a suitable option. Thus, embedding DRM in the format is the ideal method. Think about these points:
1) DRM can turn any open format, like PDF or XML, instantly into a closed format. If a competing product can't use the DRM technology, it can't read the document, even if it could do it theoretically.
2) Embedding DRM into the document format itself makes little sense, other than for the above reason. Why not just integrate proven and time-tested encryption algorithms into Office suites? If a user wants to secure a document, they can click the "secure" button, and the office suite could encrypt the document using something like PGP. That should provide enough security for most businesses, and for those that it doesn't, well they have their own security methods anyway.
3) In light of the first two reasons, it's quite clear that DRM in the document format can easily be used to turn open content into Windows content. This is especially true if the format defaults to something like "DRM on, no protection" in which the DRM mechanism would be enabled, but no access checks would be performed. To the clueless user, this would seem like the standard mechanism we have today, but these documents would not be viewable on platforms that do not have the DRM mechanism.
4) To tie it all together, the DMCA provides Microsoft with a degree of legal protection. While it is perfectly legal to reverse engineer Microsoft's document formats, it probably would not be legal to break the encryption, even if it was with the purpose of gaining interoperability.
Of course, this could be an entirely benign move on Microsoft's part. But in this day and age, and with Microsoft's track record, are you really willing to take the chance?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Software that doesn't support DRM will not be able to view these documents, and making software such as open office compatible will be a DMCA violation.
It's all falling into place quite well. It's amazing what kind of ROI you can get on Senators.
Yeah, provided the user doesn't, you know, remember it. Or print it out. Or have somebody looking over their shoulder.
This DRM crap restricts printing. Memorization of huge documents is extremely unlikely and at the very least error-prone. Lastl, someone looking over your shoulder is not an effective means of acquiring a document. Sure, the offender could catch a glimpse of what you're looking at, but too little for too short a time.
Yes, this will probably be a very effective mechanism for restricting access to documents. And of course, the issue for most open source advocates and users is that this will destroy interoperability. You will not be able to use K/Open/Star/Abi Office to open Microsoft Office documents.
Why bother.
As a worker, your boss sends you an email asking you to destroy important documents and do other immoral, illegal, and fattening things; threating to fire you if you don't. You read the e-mail and then it automatically deletes it's self. You can't print it either because the DRM says so. So now what happens to you?
I can't wait.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
This rather neatly allows Microsoft to avoid having to "share" details about Office document architecture with Open Office, KOffice, et al as per the anti-trust settlement with the US DOJ.
There were exceptions to that mandate with respect to security.
MjM
Hitting Escape while editing is a bad habit - VI needs a foot pedal
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
Of couse it concens all of those in the Open Software movement, because they are the ones that will have to be cloning this stuff on the Linux side of things.
I was sort fo hoping against hope that MS would be moving further toward XML and therefore allowing greater standardization.
It's surprising how many people make dumb comments like this on Slashdot. Please go learn about XML then get back with us.
Briefly, XML is a format for data formats. Creating a document in an XML format doesn't mean it'll be readable by anybody else. It's the rough equivalent of saying "I wish Microsoft would start using 8-bit bytes in their data files..."
Do you have ESP?
Follow me on a paranoid journey to the future. I have a feeling that the main goal of Microsoft's involvement in rights management is merely a business tactic to make it harder to use non-Microsoft software. So far the government still allows you to write software that reads a Word document. But to read a rights-managed Word document it seems like you will either have to break the rights management (DMCA violation) or emulate whatever Microsoft does to respect the rights management (software patent infringement). I'm not sure which one is the rock and which one is the hard place, but I'm feeling squeezed already.
This DRM crap restricts printing. Memorization of huge documents is extremely unlikely and at the very least error-prone. Lastl, someone looking over your shoulder is not an effective means of acquiring a document. Sure, the offender could catch a glimpse of what you're looking at, but too little for too short a time.
... literally... to his companies documents to a less-than-trustworthy vendor like Microsoft. Indeed, only an imbecelic IT manager would consider handing said power to a completely-trustworthy vendor ... any vendor, no matter how well meaning, isn't going to stay benign with that kind of power in their pocket, and Microsoft in particular has a long and well documented history of abusing exactly this sort of power.
It is an idiotic method of "security" and will likely be banned by the courts the first time it gets in the way of a subpeana.
Worse, companies will lose access to their own data, either through bugs, license management issues, lost keys/pass phrases, or a failure to upgrade on Microsoft's schedule.
Only an imbecelic IT manager would consider effectively turning over the keys
You need security and encryption? Use PGP and a good passphrase. Too difficult for you? Then get literate already. Burning down the libraries is not a cure for illiteracy, and handing complete power over your commercial data to a software monopolist is not a cure for computer illiteracy. Only education coupled with a willingness to learn is, and I suspect many, many such foolish companies will pay a very heavy price when they go down this particular road.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Wasn't the Skylorav case persued under the DMCA because he broke Adobe's file format?
Actually, this raises a new possibility for malicious code. Instead of trying to remove copy protection -- someone will write code to quietly ACTIVATE IT.
If you let them read the document, there is always the possibility of them copying it. If you want them to be able to read the document but not manipulate its contents, save it as a damn jpg or something. Or print it out and send it to them in the mail. DRM is not going to help you here, you're better off trying to work with people you actually trust. Also, if you wrote a doc and someone changed a title page and is making money from that document, you are protected by copyright law. Call a lawyer.
DRM in Office docs is optional too. The DRM is only used if the author of the information turns it on. The plain old Word format is still there, as is the new Office11 XML Word format.
Will DRM documents work in OpenOffice? Nope. BUT: Will the other formats that Office11 uses (by default)? Yep. Is Microsoft going to force anyone to use DRM? Nope. Does this mean that groups that have MSOffice and OpenOffice can still inter-operate? Yep.
Given that, is this some evil scheme to take over the world? Nope. Seriously, folks around here need to take a breather. Believe it or not, MS can just stick features in their products only because it makes them more attractive to their customers. Not everything MS does is geared towards destroying Linux/taking over the world.
Troll much? DRM technologies have been available for many years already. Did DAT eliminate audio piracy? Have DVDs eliminated video piracy? Has digital cable eliminated theft of services? Did XP stop OS piracy?
If there's one silver lining to all this it's that a heavily restrictive DRM technology will likely backfire upon those who use it. If you won't allow anybody to lend/trade/resell your creations, exposure will drop accordingly. Casual sharing is the grease that enables the small creator's works to spread about. Do you think AIM, ICQ, Napster, Kazaa, Linux, Gnome, Winamp, etc. would have achieved such widespread popularity without being freely available? Even Windows would never have gotten to where it is now without massive bootlegging. A lot of people who eventually paid for the ubiquitous Win95 and its successors "extensively previewed" Win 3.0, 3.1, and 3.11 for Workgroups for free first.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
You're really missing the entire point if you think PGP is anything like DRM.
PGP is designed to keep something secret when both the sender and the recipient want to keep it secret.
DRM is designed to keep something secret when only the sender but not the recipient wants to keep it secret.
The first is a relatively easy problem with a good solution. The second is a completely impossible problem whose attempted solution will nevertheless cause a lot of grief to society as circumvention tools like digital cameras and copy machines get banned.
Until this statement is reversed in some substantial way, with Microsoft cloning things on the Windows side, the battle is not won.
When that day dawns, we can all know that our work paid off. Till then, we're all just yapping like a pack of small, annoying dogs.
Is it fascism yet?
This is good news for me, and possibly some others as well. I'm looking forward to DRM documents.
When I publish an academic paper - it ends up being spidered by numerous search engines out there, and I can't wait until I can embed rights such as "caching allowed by google, not allowed by turnitin.bot", and "caching allowing for non-commercial purposes", or similiar. robots.txt doesn't work effectively enough, nor does it take into account what happens when someone takes a copy of the document into their intranet or onto their work machine. I'm looking forward to backup software that will honour DRM and refuse to backup documents where DRM disallows it.
It'll also be useful when I can allow use for research and teaching purposes, but indicate that licensing is needed for anything else. I'd like to allow some cut'n'paste (fair use), but I'd prefer to have the application prevent the user from extracting too many or too large a portion (I know that the technology is imperfect, and the geeks can get around it, but at least it prevents the majority of users).
It'll also be good when DRM is embedded into the metamodel itself, so that internal objects (images, movies, audio, etc) also have their own DRM perhaps with separate t&c - so I might be able to use an image under terms of fair use, and it would still properly identify its original author/owner, and the DRM would be retained even if it was cut'n'pasted out of my document. This is going to be great for my free pictures collection because I'll allow people to use the pictures in their material, and they will know that they can safely do so. And should the like it ? They'll hopefully pay me to make more !
Sorry to hear that you guys are so down in DRM. Without good DRM, the use of information (copyright, etc) will be left to FUD - with DRM, at least it's all going to be explicit.