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."
Because none of us are using Microsoft products or file formats... right?
...perhaps I missed it, but if the new file format of Office 11 documents is all XML-based, then how is it they can "restrict" the documents? Isn't it all just text?
Schnapple
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
And we all know what that means... But seriously, I'd be interested to see if this will actually prevent hole (espcially in Outlook security) or simply create another avenue for hackers to open up. But I like the idea...
-Valiss
Not all DRM is about P2P.
Wah!
...which naturally gives them an exc^h^h^hright to permanently break interoperability with OpenOffice, Koffice, etc. It's like Trusted Computing and signed Xbox images - they're not trying to shut out competition, but if that incidentally happens, they're not going to cry about it.
## W.Finlay McWalter ## http://www.mcwalter.org ##
M$ has been running after DRM for some time now, no surprise that they will use it in everything they have
.... to .... Oh damn, i cant print it due to DRM restrictions. I wander....
I wander if i can use this email to prove
Free speech is getting expensive...
Now a creator can control his own work, as it should be. As a creator, I have been waiting for such a technology. I can assign which works I want to be for my benefit, and which to give away. I am in control. This will allow me to service those which actually pay me for those works I would desire to sell. Piracy, as we know it, is about to end.
DRM will allow me to finally see how many people are actually willing to buy my work, and allow me to price accordingly. With piracy eliminated, supply and demand pricing can be truly determined.
I can't imagine how many people are going to screw around with this feature and lock themselves out of their own word file. 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?
In a large business, this technology could be invaluable. Some people might need to read a document -- but not necessarily copy or print it, because you can't be 100% sure they won't sell the information to your competition.
That being said, this is still a technology with a LOT of strings attached. Tread carefully.
-- We live in a world where lemonade is artificial and soap has real lemon.
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!
Microsoft themselves have been burned many times by leaked, and maybe falsified, documents. I have no idea how reliable all this will be without a TCPA, but I can totally understand why they'd want that kind of features.
Quite frankly, above all the abuse possibilities, I must confess that I can think of a zillion uses for rights management in document in my daily practice that are more fine grained that "can't modify" or "don't print".
And it's a feature with a double upgrad incentive: upgrade to use the feature and, oh look at that, the document format changed again! I thought they swore that would not happen anymore!
"Microsoft is requiring users who want the IRM functionality to be running Windows Server 2003, Microsoft Passport and a special Client Access License (CAL). Microsoft is offering Office Beta 2 customers who do not have Windows Server 2003 a free, hosted version of IRM to test."
..., have to upgrade?
So you mean, I, my co workers, those who I do business with, and their coworkers, and those who they do business with, and
Useless sig.
And when someone sends a "restricted" email to me from outlook 2k3, and I open it in Mozilla Mail, or another non-MS mail client either > It won't open, or The restrictions are gone. Either way - This limits the sender to sending the message only to people with Outlook 2k3 - Seems like MS is up to it's same ole tricks - forcing users to use it's software.
Don't Tread on Me
While we are bashing this, let's get rid of file permissions in Ext2.
slashdot!=valid HTML
So basically what theyre doing is including the ability to make documenst read only, read/write etc. How is this any different than say acrobat documents? I cant weite a pdf file when i open it, at least not with the reader, I cant save it, I can pretty much only look at it. Thats all that MS is doing from the sounds of it
Sorry, Microsoft Outlook has determined that you don't have sufficient privaleges to delete the mail message: "See Hot Young Teens FREE!!!!! JYXX92D"
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
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
Microsoft is requiring users who want the IRM functionality to be running Windows Server 2003, Microsoft Passport and a special Client Access License (CAL).
<sarcasm> And this will be Kosher, because we all know that Microsoft Passports are fully secure. </sarcasm>
Seriously, ideaological difference aside: Fix what's broken before you try to build new features on top of it!
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I'd like the ability to lock the sales guys from altering Powerpoint presentations. When they want a new slide they can come back, instead of "whipping one up" with the horrible graphics they get off their "20 bazillion clip art images" CDs.
... the list goes on.
Seems they don't know how to re-apply templates to new slides either. Fonts all mismatched and screwed up
...allowing restrictions to be set on Outlook mail messages...
Oh good, now I can get spam that I don't have permissons to read.
"Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil." -Philips
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 was sort fo hoping against hope that MS would be moving further toward XML and therefore allowing greater standardization (I know it's a pipe dream, but one's gotta have hope)
In order for Redmond to add rights management, it kind of implies that they will have to lock down their documents. After all, what good would it do to make a Word document only readable by some certain person or group only to have anyone with a text editor or even a web browser be able to open it?
So, they will have to encrypt everything - and each time you go to open an Excel spreadsheet or WOrd doc, the program will have to "phone home" to Microsoft with your PASSPORT account?
*sigh*
The Digital Sorceress
This will be cracked in no time, just think about the hype from Activating Windows XP, and a crack was out before it hit the shelves. It will be the same here. :)
No I didnt spell check this post...
Sorry, that was to say my diary et al does NOT want to be free.
You may want it to be free, but it doesn't want to be free, and you have no right or expectation to see that type of information that is produced in Office.
And with the example given, you have an expectation that 3M might do somthing about the dumping, but you have no expectation to see such communication.
So what does this accomplish that a chmod command or window's current file-sharing capabilities do not? Sounds like a weak marketing-based attempt to cover up their bigger security woes.
"IRM is a persistent file-level technology from Microsoft that allows the user to specify permission for who can access and use documents"
Why didn't anyone think of this before?
Pardon me for being so pessimistic, but with a company like Microsoft implementing such a broad and ambitious security scheme, It sounds more like "Microsoft is threading potential security flaws throughout the Office 2003 suite". Furthermore, the new properties being assigned to the files will likely all but assure that users will either have to upgrade, or face constant patching and updating of their software in order to read the documents. This will in turn make it much more difficult for competitors to insure compatibility.
Fine. Big evil pirate that I am, I'll just export it all as XML, remove the DRM tagged bits, then go back to watching videos in Excel and listening to MP3's in Word.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-985496.html
If some people thought that GNU/RMS is bad enough, now we have MS-RMS!
-Lucas
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
Offtopic?
Okay, for the moron who moderated this, maybe this will clear it up. This type of thing is going to open a big can of worms (no pun intended). Here's an imagined dialog box: "Microsoft DRM has determined that you've been permitted to open this document and launch the macro virus embeded in it. Microsoft DRM has determined that you have launched a macro virus and no longer have rights to any file on your computer and will be locked out. Your social security number and other vital information has been emailed to the FBI."
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
-Lucas
I don't mind being limited in options set BY THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT AUTHOR. However, being restricted by record company head several steps removed from actual artists is bad. With that said, there hasn't been a conservative, constructive, new, non-bloatware feature in the Office suite since about 1997. It doesn't seem like this trend will end anytime soon.
a list of reasons why this is stupid:
1. It's overly confusing for windows average users.
2. It's something that's easily bypassed.
3. Printscreen + CTRL-V
4. Printers used in conjunction with scanners... (hackneyed but hey it happens)
5. Fax machines.
6. Microsoft decides how these rules work.....
7... did I say microsoft?
This sucks. I like Apple. I want them to grow. But with this, and MS buying Connectix, they will die. :(
Openoffice.org... Open office is really nice. I just started using it a few months ago when one night I finally got fed-up with Word's autoformatting (fuck you, it can't be turned off and that's the truth) so I finally said "screw it, the open source office alternatives can't be this bad". I downloaded Open Office (like 5 mins on my cable modem) and installed it (like 2 minutes) and I had something that worked at least as well as and in my opinion, better than MS Office. I've been telling my friends about it ever since and a lot of them are sold on it too.
Msoft seems at first glance here to be addressing a need in my industry, health care, to tightly audit and control access to documents. The problem is the preservation of health information privacy while providing free and ready access for authorized users. Network user authentication only goes so far because the same user might need different privileges for the same document at different times, depending on the purpose of the disclosure at the time.
We have a principle in health information security called "minimum necessary" which dictates that information only be disclosed for a particular purpose and only the information needed to accomplish said purpose be disclosed at the transaction level. Meaning, if you come back and have something else to do with the same document, you might need a different level of access. It is a sticky wicket.
The best way to do is to be.
Take a screenshot, save, send... I doubt DRM can pass a simple turing test.
The only data this technology seems to protect is the data not worth spending that kind of time on. If it's not worth spending that kind of time on it, why bother protecting it in the first place?
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
*Feeling REAL sad about this.*
I dunno, I think anyone using an operating system with permissions would be a mighty bit hypocritical complaining about "permissions" on documents. It's not like they're enforcing screwed up IP law here.
And the security will probably suck.
_nfotxn
Users have enough trouble on a daily basis, not counting the problems with UI change from rev to rev. And it spirals downward quickly when trying to train users on NEW features. Most people don't understand the the need for non-p2p DRM. And fewer still want the hassle of trying to think about permissioning every time they creat a document.
What is really needed is respect from the employeer and expectation of responsibility from the employee.
Always value the individual over the system. --Bruce Lee "I don't need a Sig - I have a custom 191" - me
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.
I guess M$ has yet to hear of the 80/20 rule, where 20% of the features will be used by 80% of the buyers. No wonder they're pushing the subscription model.
3000 dead over past 2 years, still no free Palestinians, still
Microsoft is setting themselves up for failure by making a already complicated product even more complicated and harder to use seamlessly. This should not be their objective.
BTW, can anyone say that Word 2000 is not adequate for your needs? Seriously, what more do you need in a word processor? If you need more than word 2000 offers, you should be using a different product. (especially at the incredibly exorbitant cost that MS office goes for these days)
Just like password protected Word files or ebooks? this will get cracked sooner than you can say "screenshot."
sulli
RTFJ.
More restrictions for users?..oh man, lawyers and office worlkers worldwide will have trouble with this one. "Stu got my e-mail that I sent to all 6 of them...but noone else did!" Questions....I think this is either another effort by Microsoft to make itself look smart by complicating things, or a US effort to send old ppl back to school in this dying economy.
I've always wanted to say that. But he's right and it's an important point.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
What I want to know is what happens when someone circumvents this to forward a company memo to the FTC or DOJ. Whistleblowers are protected by the federal government, but they just violated the DMCA. Will the feds charge them, and then charge themselves with retaliation against a whistleblower? My head hurts.
If you're going to troll, at least make it amusing.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Check out their mailrecall and pagerecall products
I evaluated them once. You need to install a plugin in your mail client. When you open a protected document, it contacts your server to determine what can be done with the document. Pretty neat technology actually. Really good if you send an email you shouldn't have
get nemulator
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
A DRM version of Office sure would have saved them a lot of time shredding documents.
Tom
This is true, but I guess my point is that your typical administrative assistant or end user is not going to go looking for a crack or a hack or a workaround...
"Gee, I can't send this e-mail out. Oh well."
While there will definately be circumvention techniques abound, and while those of us who have to use the software will use everything we've got to get around it, 99.1% of all office users will just accept it as law.
--The space between my ears was intentionally left blank--
Because this will undoubtedly be cracked within a month, tops. There's a good chance it's already been cracked based on the betas -- and Slashdot posting it *ensures* that every techie that didn't already know about it does.
Heck, *I* woulda cracked it if I had a copy sitting around and had any interest in Office, just for the egg-on-your-face factor affecting Microsoft when they try selling their "strong" security to companies.
You cannot do secure DRM in the current computing environment. *Maybe* with Palladium in place. Definitely not now.
The only benefit I can see this giving Microsoft is a legal excuse to make their file formats *incompatible* with everyone else, and anyone else implementing support for their file formats being liable under the DMCA.
Office is Microsoft's bread and butter, and incompatibility is the worker that brings it home each day.
May we never see th
Therefore everyone will have to buy the upgrade to office 12.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
I would welcome some version of DRM for the individual. I work for a consulting company and I have had cases where other consulting companies have taken documents that I put my blood sweat and tears into, changed a title page and then went an took work away from me, let alone co-workers who have done the same.
We have often resorted to creating everything in Acrobat, which is somewhat limited, but I really would like more control. It would be great to give my team complete write access, but not worry about who I ship the document to.
It is upto me then to come to agreement with my clients about how much access they have to the documentation I produce.
D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.
NO ONE likes to lock a "softcopy" file down so that you can't suck data from it. If i want a document that i can't cut/paste data from, i print the fscking thing. The ONLY thing most people want 99% of the itme is to prevent someone from making changes to a document (such as a resume). In that case, we make PDFs... because few know how to modify them.
... Those geeks will send out emails/Word docs which are IRM'd, and then will just frustrate the hell out of the normal users who will email back asking for a "non-fscked up" version.
The esoteric nature of this scheme - much like some of the advanced features of Outlook/Exchange will be mostly if not totally lost on all but a few ubergeeks in your typical business
Its kinda like being the first guy to install a Service Pack from Microsoft the first day it comes out... you only do that once and have a horrible experience before you relize you better wait, only this will be much more powerful....
the first time Joe Businessman brings a file with him on the reoad that he can't modify or can't copy data from - he'll swear to Jesus and never EVER use this "feature" again.
In short - there are two kinds of people - people who will "get" this, and those that won't. Those that get it are either PHB's or geeks - most geeks won't want to use it or will use it to piss off the other kind of people - the normal people that won't understand how this helps them do their work.
for most people - security is a PITA - this will only make their lives more difficult, and will have them finding work arounds if it is "mandated".
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
People get more control over documents they author, corporate secrets get more secure. It's another feature that has been lacking. What's the problem?
--sdem
Everyone would love being a repository for spam. Oh wait, we already are.
Riiiiiight....have they ever done that? Hell no! And I doubt they ever will.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Traditionally a lot of DRM designs call for restictions on:
- copying
- printing
- saving
- viewing beyond a certain period of time
However, I think it is unfair that email I send to customer_support@[your_favorite].com is deleted so quickly. I should be able to tag my email so that I control when and how the message is deleted! It's my content, so as part of my license I control when it may be deleted. This contractual item ought to be backed up by digital rights management software restrictions.
Therefore, I think it any DRM software should allow a user to restrict the following additional action:
- deleting
"Save As" and change the drop-down box to "Word 97 document"?
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
You can restrict acccess to printing to a pdf document since a while. Why are people bashing MS for this ? Because it's MS ?
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...
I wonder why Microsoft is so interested in controlling access to archived emails?
...
I wonder if they have had any bad experiences with this in the past?
Just a hunch
It's not as much about Security, as it is about Integrity of the Document.
Manager creates stnadard boilerplate documents, with certain fields uneditable.
Regular Users can use those documents, make changes in the sections they're allowed to make changes in and issue them to clients, or send them for storage or whatever, but cannot edit certain portions of the documents (usually done by accident, rather than intentionally).
will this impact the people that pirate the software? seems like it basically eliminates piracy quickly.
members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
Somebody creates a textbook with valuable information in it. They seal it up using MS-RSM. Now you can no longer copy sections of it as specifically allowed via Constitutional Fair Use rights.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Incidently, this may be the first time someone's tried using the DMCA to enforce *file format* incompatibility. MS has done it before with copyrights (claiming that the C header files in wine used to implement Win32 were "derivative" of their own header files), with trade secrets (claiming that the "open" spec for their Kerberos modifications were protected as a "trade secret" and that no one else could implement it). It's been done before with patents (people claiming that an executable packer uses a patented algorithm). The special cases the DMCA puts into law are the only fork of IP that hasn't yet been used to try to ensure incompatibility.
Oh, and I dunno what MS's lawyers were threatening Nullsoft with if they didn't disable their "save to WAV" feature whenever users play a WMA file in WinAmp, but that theoretically could have been patent claims, so this may be a grand slam for MS in terms of misapplying IP law to screw the consumer if they try to go with a competitor's product -- they alone will have covered the entire gamut.
May we never see th
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.
Like so many other posters, I agree that DRM for internal company secrets etc. is actually beneficial, but what will happen if people start putting restrictions on everything by default because they're too lazy to change settings?
Suddenly, future historians will have lost everything from 21st century eating habits (people passing along recipies) to important governmental policies (president writes read-only letter to citizens, forgets to uncheck the "autodestruct after a year" box).
People would have to be very careful when choosing what to limit rights on, but somehow I doubt they will. These are the same people who open attachments that end in .jpg.vbs and end up hurting themselves, so what reason is there to assume that they would care about hurting someone else 500 years from now?
My Sig: SEGV
I like it.. The next virus does not have to delete your documents. All it has to do is wipe out access to the passport server. Can you say locked out of your own work?
The truth shall set you free!
...but what happened to XML? I'm sure secured DRM Office 11 documents are PLAIN-TEXT STANDARD XML documents...so suuure...
I don't see what the big deal is. Acrobat files have been password-protectable for years. It's also difficult to cut and paste or edit an Acrobat file from Office-type applications, because Acrobat files are basically graphics files. It works. I and my collegues have been using it forever.
I've never been an Office user, partly because it doesn't meet these needs. I don't know why people even buy Office, except to open Office files that others have sent. Office sucks. Just say no!
then their DRM doesn't seem to be doing very well right now.
The ______ Agenda
So, say I have office 2004 (which I won't) and I am reading a restricted document, which I supposedly cannot print or forward. Then I just take my digital camera, snap a picture of the screen (or two or three) and I have nice jpeg's to send around, print, post etc.
Just outlaw digital cameras as DMCA circumvention devices.
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
Look, I've trusted MS before -- WMA Was supposedly their next 'killer app' for online distribution, so what did i do with a friend way back when it was about to debut? Start a company that would harness WMA technology to deliver unique content, in a unique manner, to Indy bands across the USA using the internet and WMA as out content distribution system. WMA promised to allow you to listen to music for a set period of time and then its license would expire and give the user the option to purchase the piece.
Months later: distribution system already in alpha testing, VC funding on the way, patent pending technologies, WMA Cracked, technology moot. That was the day I went from Linux dabbler to Linux convert.
See the problem was that we trusted MS and built a business around their proprietary technology, a technology that was supposedly 'uncrackable' based on the way it generated a unique id from a user's specific computer, hardware, and setup. There is no uncrackable unexploitable technology.
While the world once again puts its faith in Microsoft's proprietary 'uncrackable' DRM, I'll be over here on my Gentoo box coding tools that will enable users to DO more rather than RESTRICT more.
Oh and when a clever hacker cracks their DRM I'll be outside laughing and dancing in the street.
-- -=innocent ramblings from the mind of an insomniatic programmer=-
I actually mean "Outlook" and Word. I use Access for work purposes, VBA stuff, Excel because people send me things in that format, but for the most part, when I install Office on my PCs, it's for Outlook.
When I installed Open Office, I was very disappointed to see no Outlook, for some reason, I thought everyone else considered Outlook to be the cornerstone of Office, like I did.
The truth doesn't care what I think.
"Just reply to this message and we'll send you the password required to delete it."
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
you see...the word Microsoft is synonymous with evil
pgp=pretty GOOD privacy....
enough said...:)
nbfn
it's called a "screenshot."
--
http://nemilar.net - Not your grandmother's soup kitchen
There's still a big block of text in there... just use the plain editor to read it. It'll be extra fun to read the DRM tags and say, "oh, hi there mr. privacy manager, i think i'll just scroll down... heh heh heh."
sir_haxalot
stuff |
But now, with the 2000 versions, include Project/Project Server, Visio, MapPoint, Frontpage, Publisher, and the list goes on and on.
For Project use MrProject.
For Visio use Kivio or Dia.
I'm not familiar with MapPoint, but it seems to be more content[1] than code, unless you count the work being done with GRASS.
I'm not familiar with the full version of FrontPage, but for FrontPage Express use Mozilla Composer.
For desktop publishing use one of those graphical LaTeX editors.
[1] RMS hates the word "content", but I know of no better word to describe copyrighted works other than computer-readable descriptions of algorithms.
Will I retire or break 10K?
maoist technoanarchist "info wants to be free "dude says:
;-P
microsoft is embracing restrictive ip policies.
this will drive people to embrace open source where there are no such ip restrictions.
everyone say: "bye bye microsoft, sorry you hitched your star to the wrong historical bet."
i think the future of the internet and computing in general will split: those who embrace over-litigious, oppressive ip policies, and those that have none.
ip laws and policies are getting ridiculous, in the eu, in the us, everywhere. kazaa is just an opening shot.
i won't debate the moral correctness of thumbing your nose at ip laws, i will simply state that your average CONTROL of information distribution is moving away from the old model: companies and corporations, and moving to individuals, who aren't so bound by corporate codes of conduct.
who cares about drm? where's my damn file?
how the hell do you control millions of individual users and what they do with files? where is the enforcement? where is the punishment? there is none.
it is the prisoner's dilemna writ large against the internet. those who try to exert control on files at the individual level will lose, as no one will care to get those files and their overbureacratic, overly litigious fud.
those who provide no restrictions on their files/ programs/ music will seem their stuff widely adapted.
and those who try to fight the piracy of their ligitimate files will be fighting individuals like trying to shovel sand away from the oncoming tide. take down 2 users, 10 more crop up. and before you can go after the new 10, they disappear and 20 more appear.
it is impossible to control these things. microsoft: either unplug the whole damn internet, or adapt to the new world... no one likes old world restrictions placed on the internet. and the internet is widely popular in the first place simply because there are no such old world restricitons on the flow of information in it. duh!
why is it so essential to human nature to try to control that which is useful simply because it is free? you try to control it, and its usefulness goes away in the process of you trying to control it. human weakness will not change the internet. the internet will banish human weakness and ridiculous, choking ip laws which stifle innovation instead of fostering it.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
nor will you be able to print screen or screen capture because the portions of the screen containing the DRMed data will be redacted.
Large fonts + TV-out + TV-in + OCR = Plaintext. Or are you claiming that whenever the user is viewing a restrictions-managed document, the OS will turn on Macrovision?
Will I retire or break 10K?
I cant save it, I can pretty much only look at it
If you can look at it, you can save it. Even if the program disables digital screen capture (Print Screen + paste into MS Paint), that doesn't prevent me from video-capturing the signal sent to my display and then OCRing the text on the other machine.
Will I retire or break 10K?
It wouldn't kill you for your writing hand to get a little exercise.
--sdem
This is, incidentally, a similar issue that I have with most copy-control software, that has no provisions at all for the expiration of copyright.
You will expire before copyrights do.
Will I retire or break 10K?
a GOOD thing for the people.
KFG
Lots of comments so far with bits of the puzzle. Let's put them all together.
Microsoft Office with DRM
DRM includes application, client and SERVER (e.g.OS) pieces
DMCA prevents reverse engineering of protocols
(The one no one has mentioned) Microsoft owns a patent on "A DRM Operating System"
So it's protected, you can't break it without violating the DMCA, and if you reverse engineer it is some way that skirts the DMCA, you are violating a Microsoft patent.
You do the Math, but I think that any ability to interoperate with Microsoft Office on a non-Microsoft-approved platform just evaporated.
Microsoft is not as dumb as some here on /. would have you believe.
Initial disclaimer: I read the article.
:)
When I use Jaws PDF creator to publish to PDF, I already have similar options: I can prevent cut-and-paste from a PDF, prevent printing, yadda yadda yadda...or allow full and unfettered access.
THis brings up two points already mentioned: makes potential corporate crime easier to cover up by preventing "secured" documents from leaking outside to the open world and preserves copyright.
Corporate scandals: yes, I agree with those who say this could lead to more and bigger scandals. When documents that incriminate the boardroom are protected from being read, copied, and/or printed, the temptation to get away with a little bit of "innocent embezzlement" may prove too tempting to the average Joe Officeworker who would otherwise keep to stealing pens and paperclips.
Copyright management: if I write something and decide I don't want it copied and printed without my permission, that is my option. I could also leave it completely unfettered by IRM, allowing free use by all. Just because a feature exists doesn't mean it has to be (or will be) used.
Now, in the interests of backwards compatibillity, I would bet good money that this feature will have the option of being disabled to allow backwards compatibility with Office 97, 2000, and 2002. If the feature can't be disabled and backwards compatibility is not maintained, then companies and individuals won't bother to upgrade to something that won't work universally. It would actually PREVENT adoption, as companies that still use the older products won't want to fork over the ca$h to upgrade all of their software at once.
Now, off the topic somewhat...
"Microsoft also is working on a DRM server, code-named "Tungsten," which is slated to ship initially as a Windows Server 2003 add-on later this year."
Think Palm will raise a stink over the use of "Tungsten", the name of their latest handheld PDAs?
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
...The only difference is, you can set the permissions for everyone. The document can spread and you can keep those permissions in tact.
Once again MS has shown they are ahead of the curve when it comes to introducing new features. This is a great feature. For instance, now I can distribute documents under NDA to customers and partners without worrying about them casually distributing the info to whomever they feel like. Of course there are ways to get by the security if someone really wants to. But it stops unintentional distribution of sensitive material into the wrong hands. In a few year OSS will realize this is a good h]feature and put it in Open Office. People will still be saying that Microsoft is not innovative then too, I'm sure.
Vote for Pedro
Sounds alot like gpg to me.. with more whistles (and potential problems). I can't wait to hear from users who can't open a document... I'll just say "sorry, it can't be permissions on the server. It must be the document."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
And presumably the FBI will want a backdoor to this, so that they can read anyone's documents or email?
Mark.
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 is the most flamable straw-man ever.
Well here's a little trick you can play RIGHT NOW in the current unprotected document system on Windows OR Linux.
Hee hee, as admin find grep for e-mails going from person a to person b and change occurrances of the work "do" with "don't" or vice versa!
There are so many ways for the end user or man in the middle to fsck over documents at source or in transit it's not funny. A little DRM could actually go a LONG way twards preventing the very kinds of shenanigans you cite from happening in today's systems!
Not to mention the dozens of other torches to your non-argument provided by others. If Linux were doing this it would be hailed as the greatest security benefit for document users ever conceived! (Not that it is, but it would be hails as such)
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Guess I'll stick to Office 2000. Mind you, my employer still insists to use Office 97 due to major compatibility issues with macros and VBA (and it is a 400+ people company)!!!!
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
Yeah, but using the MS approach we would have all the buzzwords necessary.
Open, XML, DRM, control access, etc....
Oh yeah they forget to say, it is open so long as you pay to look at it.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
If the implementation depends only software, with no hardware support, wouldn't it only be a matter of time before the encryption is broken?
Besides, one can easily copy the information by setting up a few simple macros that image-copy each screenful of the document, perhaps running OCR and reformatting on the image set.
you should have posted twice: one with your normal tone, and the other with your spiteful one. It would have made for a better read.
I know what happened with Microsoft before on getting their security certifications. They tend to forget a lot of the grunt work around implementations so you will probably still be able to screenshot and paste, let alone paste documents.
See my journal, I write things there
Wasn't the Skylorav case persued under the DMCA because he broke Adobe's file format?
I know that's not helpful, but I can't help but agree.
The problem with this isn't that it's an implementation of privacy, but that it's Microsoft implementing my privacy.
I can encrypt every document on my hard drive right now, and I don't need Microsoft to do it for me.
DRM as envisioned by corporations like MS fails to account for the fact that if information can be interpreted by one person, it can be interpreted by anyone. There are all sorts of ways around it in this case: screenshot, hack accounts, print it out, hack the frickin DRM, convert it into a different format, and so forth and so on. Yes, it makes it more difficult, but there will still be problems.
Security begins with the user. If your staff is mass emailing sensitive documents to spammers, that's a problem with your staff, not the email program, and certainly not the text format of your email.
Sure, privacy is important, and restricting access is too. They're fundamental. But that should be something that's done by the user, the sysadmin, not MS.
If MS were creating this spec, and publishing the whole document spec as open source, I'd be happy, more or less. Fine--then there'd be nothing stopping other developers from implementing the spec. But as it stands--and likely will stand--this won't be open, and restricting access to my document won't mean restricting it to who I want, it'll mean restricting it to who MS thinks it's okay for me to want to restrict it to.
DRM should be separate from any particular corporation's implementation of it.
Office11 is an application, without proper help from the OS it's already just waste of computing power :)
So if M$ wants strong security it must reimplement the 90% or more of the OS (from memory management, through process separation, low level I/O, and even the whole GUI (this includes buttons, labels, drag&drop, clipboard...) to have access management between the objects.
Ohh, and if they want 3rd parties to write apps for this new system, they have to provide APIs for accessing the contents of these files, and you can just write a program, that only decrypts the data using the API, and then sends it char by char through the network, and you already skipped the higher level protection of the Office routines (eg that won't let you print it)
It's a hell lot of work even for M$... I highly doubt that they would make this step.
Hey they even have to break API (not just binary) compatibility.
I don't publish my private affairs; I encrypt sensitive documents to keep them private.
I do publish documents for public consumption. Outside of copyright, I have no control over what happens to that data afterwards. To try to control who can read those documents and under what conditions is both unreasonable and impractical.
The only way to keep your trade secrets out of the public is through expensive safeguards. The more important the information, the higher the expense. DRM may provide some of this infrastructure to corporations, but I don't see it replacing existing methods of maintaining confidential information.
Access control mechanisms have been available for decades. DRM has merely centralized access control and increased the number and complexity of the failure modes. In the worst case, not even the system administrator can rescue a document from the file system if certain aspects of the DRM system have failed.
In the end, I believe, DRM will prove to be nothing more than an ineffective burden. There are better ways to do things.
-Hope
Shouldn't that be:
New President *W* is elected and drops the suit. (Open Source world watches history repeat itself)
-Zipwow
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
The interminable discussions on
Anyway, these are random thoughts. If you're kind, send me aspirin. I have a headache.
Of course, like most people, I find that the most important thing about Word is that I can always count on getting help writing a letter.
because it lets us protect our own documents. we're only interested in stealing other people's content, remember???
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
This is great, because at work I hate to protect every worksheet with our department's password. Now all we have to do is associate the file with our password, and only the right people get to edit it. This is brilliant.
Wasn't the Skylorav case persued under the DMCA because he broke Adobe's file format?
Not really. The PDF file format is an open format. Anyone can make PDF tools. Skylorav didn't crack the file format, he cracked the optional encryption that the file MAY contain.
There is a key difference: Microsoft has repeatedly tried to prevent other companies from being able to read/write their file formats. By including DRM in the file format, Microsoft could be setting up the chance to sue OpenOffice (for example) in the event they include Office interoperability.
The interesting thing (to me) is that until I read this post, I though that this was really not a big deal. I actually think Office is a good place for DRM. Having the ability to place some limitations on who can read my business documents is a good thing. If it weren't for the DMCA, I would say that this is a case of people overreacting just because MS is involved. Unfortunately, the DMCA changes all that. Microsoft will almost certainly use this as a tool to prevent interoperability, and there's probably not a thing anyone can do to stop them.
Actually, it occurs to me that the DMCA specifically allows reverse-engineering for interoperability, so this may not be as bad as I'd originally thought. On the other hand, most Open Source projects don't have the money for Lawyers, so it will possibly have a stifling effect whether it is illegal or not.
Here's an article on this. The article title gets the point across pretty clearly: "New technology could cut down on whistleblowing". Think Enron, WorldCom, cigarette companies, etc... .
It seems that this technology would be pretty valuable for terrorists, no? This is a child pornographer's dream. You want to run a second set of books so you can pay less taxes, use the new MS Office. How exactly will law enforcement do legitimate searches? A lot of the arguments made against strong crypto by the government would seem better aimed at DRM.
Keep in mind that mobsters have been jailed even though they used strong crypto because the government tapped their keyboards (after obtaining legitimate warrents to do so) and sniffed their keys. Do we REALLY want to allow a system where the machine prevents us from gathering such evidence? How would you like to receive a death threat from a mobster via email and be unable to prove it to the police?
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.
Word, Excel, Powerpoint ... feh. Nothing new here, but man Access is so intense when you use all the VBA stuffings. If I was Oracle, I'd steal whoever it was that made Access.
IMHO, Access is the only MS product ever that is worth its weight. It really is an innovative thing. The rest is pretty much bad copies.
If some wise /.'er knows which product MS copied to make Access, I'd like to know.
Clickety Click
I mean does it force program pirates to include source or link, as the GPL mandates?
Just another reason to use OpenOffice.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
You confuse my observation with an endorsement. No matter, it's really another discussion, but suffice it to say that I am doing everything I can within my own organization to get them to abandon Windows completely. Having said that, I stand by the assertion that we won't make the transition to an electronic medical record until we can roll out a solution that can do something like what Msoft seems to claim this Office 11 release can do.
The best way to do is to be.
I'm around many scientists and engineers. I know zero people who use EndNote. Plenty who use bibtex.
And as far s the original post goes, it wouldn't matter if MS did add bibiliography support to Word. Who is dumb enough to use Word to write a research paper anyway? This is why there are things like Framemaker and LaTeX.
If the DMCA truly allows reverse-engineering for purposes of interoperability, then whats the problem with DeCSS, and Linux DVD players that use it?
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.
I can see it already. IT sends me an e-mail. It tells me to print these instructions and follow them. But they DRMed the damn thing so I can not print it.
I already see a work around. Take a screen shot and print the image!
Religion is the main cause of atheism.
That line you see forming.. It's not for the next Star Wars movie.. It's not another anti-war rally... It's freedom-loving people lining up ready to show some outright, no-holds-barred civil disobediance towards the Digital Millenium Copyright Act by cracking the DRM crap in Office 11 documents and spreading the circumvention code the heck all over the globe faster than a recipe for the world's best chocolate chip cookies. If Microsoft tries to use this nonsense to lock competitors out of their document formats, I predict all gloves come off.
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.
It will be interesting to see if DRM makes an appearance in other office suites, especially the ones available for Linux.
Make no mistake - corporates will like this functionality. If Linux wants to compete on the desktop in an corporate environment, then some form of DRM may have to make an appearance.
On the other hand, as evidenced by the comments here, most open source advocates hate the idea of DRM in documents or other files.
I'm afraid that DRM may well start making an appearance in packages we know and love. I'm sure the implementation will be well done, but I believe that it will inevitably make an appearance, no matter how flawed everyone thinks the idea is.
> allowing restrictions to be set on Outlook mail messages
Does this mean a spammer can DRM-tag his messages so they cannot be forwarded to his ISP?
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
DRM + Palladium at the hardware level sounds like a hell of a lot of work just to finally get good ol' *nix style file permissions into Windows.
What I want to know is: where in Word do you type
and ?Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire
Quick, let's get this ported unto Linux!
Whistleblowers... Those wonderful people that either suddenly obtain a conscience or always have one but come in contact with materials within a corporation or government agency that speak of dubious plans or vile previous actions.
Without those people, large corporations and secret portions of government will be able to get away with many more vile acts, since they can simply "lock-up" all of the offending documents, protecting themselves from potential whistleblowers.
Then, if a whistleblower does somehow get documents out of the computers, that person could be sued out of existence via the DMCA.
Wow, isn't the law great?!
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Why in God's name would you make DRM the default? That would mean that email, by default, could not be printed or forwarded. Word docs, by default, couldn't be passed around and edited by a team.
Ease of use is inversely porportional to security. DRM is a pain in the ass. Microsoft's customers (and Microsoft knows this) will save DRM for data that really needs the security. Cutting the cord, as you put it, will probably drive many customers away from Office. From Microsoft's point of view, this is A Bad Thing.
BTW, saying "This hypothetical situation *might* happen in the future, therefore my argument is true" is a logical fallacy of truely epic scale. If you want to conclusively 'win' an argument, you'll need to use factual data.
Just because an idea or knowledge I have affects you, doesn't immediately give you the right to that information or idea.
Yes, it affects you. Yes, you'd like to know they were dumping into your ground water. And, yes, it is an illegal act. That doesn't mean you have the right to know what I know about that illegal act.
I am not forced to tell you, or anyone else, that I broke the law. Whether that information is in my head, or on paper, you don't have an implicit right to access it.
SnagIt. As long as you can view it on a screen, I can imagine at least one work-around - use SnagIt. If you can use Word 11 through Citrix, this is a mundane operation. Possibly, you can even do a direct cut&paste from the Citrix window to a window on your desktop. And OCR software has been pretty powerful these last years so basically, after doing some SnagIt snapping, you could send it through Omnipage.
If it can't be cracked (software, hardware) there is always my trusty spy camera, or screen capture utility. :P
You are talking about DRM that is actually used to enhance security, or prevent copying. This could have a default level of "DRM level 0 - use the default MicroSoft Keys to encode your documents. This will allow other users of New WordSecure to read your docs without hinderance."
That would be enough to allow the DMCA to become activated, but would make it illegal for OpenOffice to be able to read the documents. And it would allow anyone who had the latest version of MSOffice to exchange documents with anyone else who also had it.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
This is similar to using PGP or GPG to encrypt files and communications. For those of us who try and use these products, the frustrations are the extra steps required to use these tools, the huge amount of trust required in readers, and lack of standard installations.
It is almost not worth encrypting communication until DRM is in place. It is because office applications don't understand encryption that copy-paste, printing and forwarding can still occur today. I certainly hope that other popular encryption products jump aboard.
Imagine it locks up your Excel sheet to read-only (w/Palladium backing).
"What do you mean you can't fix it? I can see my entire workbook here, I'm just not allowed to change it. I can't even copy & paste. What do you mean I'll have to start over? I need those data I see right in front of me, it's not deleted, so fix it!"
Nothing like a virus that'll not only take your data, but also rub your nose in it. Somebody remember to give this idea to the script kiddies.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Employees who see their boss ignoring a non-essential rule are going to start ignoring it, too. Especially since they don't understand encryption or data security.
Most people can't remember their passwords - I used to work at a tech company and the whole place only had three passwords - even for critical systems. Within a few weeks most senior employees are going to know their boss's override and be able to look at or print any document they want.
A Contradiction:
DRM = Controls and Stops Free Flow of Info
Well Run and Profitable Bussinesses = Free Flow of Ideas and Information
Anyone interested in a high level of data security is already using PGP/GPG, anyone interested in a low level of data security (enough to stop casual snoopers) is already using the password system thats already in Microsoft Office. Everyone else just doesn't care, and as everyone knows caring IS the first requirement for data security (and everything else in life...)
If the DMCA truly allows reverse-engineering for purposes of interoperability, then whats the problem with DeCSS, and Linux DVD players that use it?
Good question. I wish I could give you an answer. Unfortunately, MPAA Lawyers don't seem to be bound by this trivial thing called "the law".
Ok, a more serious answer... The MPAA argues that the purpose of reverse engineering CSS was not for interoperability, but for piracy. Regardless of the numerous non-infringing uses, the courts have chosen to side with Hollywood on the issue & declared it illegal.
The same could ceratinly happen in the case of Office, so the interoperability clause could be useless. However, it would be a much bigger stretch to argue the same thing when you're dealing with office documents rather then movies.
My problem with this statement is that you're assuming that Microsoft will do this. Just to screw up OSS.
First, what benefit would that action afford the customer? Why would they want plain documents level-0 encrypted? It'll break all their non-Office tools, like intranet search tools. It does not improve _any_ customer scenario relating to standard open Office data.
Then answer is that it will only screw the customer. That's stupid, because it will not work towards Microsoft's goal of selling more copies of Office.
Immediately assuming that MS will do *anything* that won't improve a customer scenario is paranoid, and deluded. It's like saying that MS's 50,000 employees are sitting around all day, trying to think up new ways of BF'ing their customers. I know quite a few folks who work there, and it certainly isn't their MO. Name one successful company that works that way? (Don't say 'Microsoft'--that's asinine)
Based on Judge Kaplan's ruling, the compatibility provision only applies if you are making two programs interact. It does not apply if you are simply making a program to access a DRM restricted document.
I have to question if the DMCA applies at all. According to the DMCA:
So, if you just publish a DRM-restricted document, and give everyone permission to do anything they want with it, they should be able to circumvent the system.
Also, the DMCA only applies to works protected by copyright. If you distribute your own copyrighted work, and surrender the copyright after two weeks, anyone can circumvent the system to access your works.
And of course, IANAL.
My problem with this statement is that you're assuming that Microsoft will do this. Just to screw up OSS.
Why not? They've broken numerous open standards before, for no reason other then defeating competing software (See the Halloween documents for examples).
First, what benefit would that action afford the customer? Why would they want plain documents level-0 encrypted? It'll break all their non-Office tools, like intranet search tools. It does not improve _any_ customer scenario relating to standard open Office data.
Since when has MS ever given a damn about their customers? MS introduces a new file format in every upgrade to Office, so they clearly aren't overly concerned about backwards compatibility. In fact, it's just the opposite. By making the new version incompatible with the old version, it forces everyone to upgrade.
Immediately assuming that MS will do *anything* that won't improve a customer scenario is paranoid, and deluded. It's like saying that MS's 50,000 employees are sitting around all day, trying to think up new ways of BF'ing their customers.
Of course their not thinking of ways to screw their customers. THeir thinking of ways to sell more copies of Office. The fact that both goals often have the same result is coincidental. 95% of MS Employees are likely fine. I live in Seattle, and know several employees myself. But MS has a demonstrated past of this sort of behaviour, so saying they won't do it just because it might hurt their customers is foolish. I am not saying that MS will pursue DMCA action against anyone who tries to break the DRM, just that it could happen, and therefore will likely have a chilling effect on development. This is a god thing from MS's point of view, and exactly why I think the DMCA is a bad law and probably unconstitutional.
DRM in Office docs is optional too. The DRM is only used if the author of the information turns it on.
And DRM is optional in PDF, but they still sued Skylarov. The only reason that I pointed out the fact that it was optional was in response to the person who said that the Adobe case was to protect the file format. As I pointed out, PDF is open, so their is nothing to protect. In this case, however, the file format is proprietary, so the DMCA could be used to attack any reverse engineering. As I pointed out, MS will have a tougher time with this case due to the clear interoperability uses such reverse-engineering will have. Nonetheless, since MS's legal pockets are considerably deeper then most of it's competitors, and certainly it's OSS competitors, the mere threat of legal action will likely have a chilling effect.
with gnuPGP I can restrict who reads what, right now.
It's fool proof too. And I don't have to pay Billy-boy any royalties to do it..
UP YOURS BILL !!!!!!!!
Big deal. Suck the file into a system that does not honor the RMS/DRM process and deal with it.
Can you spell LINUX???
Cracking codes with a different type of system is the way to do it. They fail in that they ASSUME that only WINBLOZ users will intercept the files.
How will the secure versions of Outlook work? I mean more specifically outside of the local domain? Sure, I can post a message to everyone in my company and prevent them from forwarding it on, but once the email is out into the wild of the internet it's going to have to be backwards compatible for other people to read it.
Therefore assuming these restrictions are in the header (as thats the only place I can think of that would render the email still readable for 90% of the planet):
- What is to stop companies modifying all outbound emails to add these restrictions?
- What is to stop companies automatically removing these restrictions from all incoming emails?
Sure the number of people using Outlook 11 won't be massive - but look at how popular Outlook 2000 is now. Give it a couple of yearsAvantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.