Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Offers A DRM Patch
Transcendent writes "Microsoft Windows Update is offering a download for their 1.0 version of the 'Microsoft Windows Rights Management client,' if you care to download it. Seems that you need Win98 SE and up (or at least that's the minimum 'supported'). Details are here. Although it's not required or a 'critical' update, this just paves the road for all of Microsoft's software to require DRM technology on your computer. Quote from the details page: 'Installing this client allows RM-aware applications to work with Windows Rights Management Services (RMS) to provide licenses for publishing and consuming RM-protected information.' This, dubbed 'Activation', entails that 'your computer will be automatically connected via the Internet ... in order to create and save on your computer a system component that is associated with your hardware.' Hmmm... me no like ..."
The thin end of the wedge.
Remember where you were when the world started to roll over, and let MS tickle its belly.
But Grandad, didn't you try to fight them?
No little one, it just seemed harmless at the time...
Get your own free personal location tracker
I wonder if Microsoft got any money from the RIAA to do this? I imagine if done properly something like this could actually put a bit damper on illegal music.
With everyone and their uncle updating their Windows these days to be safe from the latest viruses and worms, this is definitely a very good moment to push a DRM patch...
My next comment will be ready soon, but moderators can beat the rush and mod it up early.
Thanks for providing a link to an MS download on a pro-Linux site... no seriously, nothing like baiting on a slow news day. Were we expecting MS to sidestep digital rghts-management? I think not.
We'll ignore the fact that on the same day, Gates donated $168 million to fund malaria research, but funnily enough, I doubt we'll see that reported here.
Cool MS now please put DRM into all of your software. When people cannot pirate your software easily I can sell even more linux.
Got Code?
It's been out for a few days. I haven't installed it.
You just know that they're going to make you install it somehow... Be it selling a product a lot of people use (Office) and saying it can't be installed without the DRM software, etc.
You're kidding, right?
Crippled CDs. Region-encoding.
Your every-day consumer doesn't give a crap about DRM, crippled software/audio, or anything else, for that matter. Your average consumer doesn't even know about crippled CDs.
They'll get away with this, because most comsumers are dolts.
--
http://nemilar.net - Not your grandmother's soup kitchen
Interesting that it supports Win98SE, since Microsoft itself doesn't support that OS anymore.
It's an optional install.
You say "we'll see how long that lasts".
Ok, so maybe it becomes mandatory and gets installed on my computer. It will enable me to use rights protected files. If I don't want to use any rights protected files, then I won't.
Winzip has had a password protection feature for its archives for a long time. Doesn't mean I have to use it. But if someone sent me a password protected zip file, along with the password (giving me permission to extract the files), I'd be happy that my version of Winzip supported passwords. It doesn't mean that my archives that are not password protected can no longer be extracted, or that I must password protect everything.
Sure, Microsoft could lock down Windows Media Player so that RM is required, etc, but then everyone (that cares) would just stop using WMP. You think they're going to lock down the sound & video API's in the OS so that nobody can make their own media players?
I would like everyone to take every opportunity to refer to Microsoft's 'trusted' computing as "restricted computing" instead. We need to get this meme going in the mass-market consumer mind. Every place you would ever refer to "trusted" computing, use the phrase "restricted computing" instead. DRM is "restriction management". There are no "rights" here, just restrictions. "RM" should be called "restriction management". If we can get enough steam behind this now, we can turn the debate around to let people really understand what they are dealing with. "Trusted" my ass!
Bullshit.
.doc files that your clients will invariably send.
This means that it is impossible to build a non-MS piece of software that can read
In other words, Microsoft is using DRM to enforce their monopoly "by name." No need to keep switching incompatible formats, it will be either impossible or illegal (DMCA) to construct a Word clone.
BIG problem, methinks...
"Your every-day consumer doesn't give a crap about DRM, crippled software/audio, or anything else, for that matter. Your average consumer doesn't even know about crippled CDs."
They do and will when their CD won't play in the player they want it to. Or when it won't rip to MP3 on their computer.
Corporatism != Free Market
1) this component with never run on Linux or OS/X desktops (let alone other desktops).
...
2) in 18 months or a year +50% of new content will require it (MS authoring tools will make it easy)
3) most CIOs will cave in and view this as a reason to accept MS licensing
4) more XP and new MS licensing 6 licenses are sold, more content authoring tools from MS are sold, complete and utter locking in of MS on desktop is more likely
Conclusion: either way, in every way and on all sides Microsoft wins hugely by doing thing
Or I could be wrong
...but when MS controls 85% of the country's desktops, Ashcroft is pushing for greater intrusion into our private lives, corporations are being pressed to provide any and all information they have on citizens to the DOJ (and are doing so -- viz. JetBlue), and the Supremes simply override the Constitution at whim, I'm afraid it's not time for "ho-hum".
Unless you're incredibly comfortable with Reich Emergency Protection Act ---- oops, make that the "Patriot" Act ---- it IS the apocalypse, and it's time to wise up and push back.
No. If you don't want the patch, don't download it.
I think the point is that any newer (media) software written for Windows will eventually tie-in with the RM APIs, so you won't have a choice in the future. It won't be as simple as "don't use it." MS is apparently floating the balloon to see how the users react. Unfortunately, most users lack the forward-thinking ability that supposedly distinguishes them from their simian ancestors (I can't name one person who patched for MS Blaster - until after their PCs were infected) they won't give a hoot until they're being charged $1 every time they listen to an MP3.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
But what is not a minor thing is trivializing the horrors of the holocaust by comparing it to a software patch.
At least the holocaust deniers admit that, if it had happened, it would have been a horrible thing, but slimes like you say: Yeah, it happened, but it's no worse than a Microsoft software patch.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Because like it or not, new versions of software will be full of bugs (read exploitable, hackable), while older versions will be more well-crafted (read treacherous).
All of these is assuming that you do not want to trust MS. Personally, I'm undecided, but for lots of you out there, you have decided. This is the best advice I have for you.
I'm sure someone has already said this, but...
What are you worried about? If you don't want to support the RIAA then don't. If you don't want to support MS then don't. Buy indie. Buy a Mac or Linux. There will ALWAYS be someone to offer an alternative to the flavor of the day, and you have a choice.
The people who buy the disposable crap that the RIAA peddles probably won't see the effects of DRM like a more advanced user will. I know this is a very large brush I am using here, but I will go out on a limb and say that 99% of the people who buy Britney Spears or The Ataris albums use their computers for e-mail, ICQ, and writing their resume to get a job at The Gap. You could give them a patch entitled "MS Will Spy On You Patch" and these people would still download it because a computer guy told them it was required.
The people who know better will not use DRM, plain and simple. And before you go into a "but when MS rules the world and all hardware has to comply to their specs" argument, there is simply too much money in big business and education/research for the entire hardware industry to shift this way. Virginia Tech just proved that admirably with their G5 flotilla, to pick a recent development from the haystack.
It is good that you are concerned, but to go so far as to say that we are all screwed is just being dramatic because you will always have a choice.
Right now Richard Stallman is the first link in a Google search for RMS, that's going to take time and effort for Microsoft to change, and any astroturfing attempt on Microsoft's part would probably be met by a grassroots effort to keep Stallman at the top.
RMS himself, on the other hand, doesn't need to make much effort at all to take advantage of the situation. It would be easy for him to tack a short rant about DRM, TCPA, "Trusted computing", and all the other current buzzwords onto the top of the political "action items" on his home page, so that even more mainstream people looking for information on MS/RMS are directed to GNU/RMS instead. It would also be easy to make sure that his essay The Right to Read, which looked like a paranoid rant in 1997 and looks like a prescient description of DRM policies today, gets read by many of the MS/RMS websearchers who hit his site "by mistake".
I hope this isn't a coincidence; I hope some Microsoft exec intentionally chose "RMS" as a snide little poke at Stallman - that would make it sweeter when it backfired.
I think that everyone needs to remember that this is what DRM is all about. MS has been walking a thin line between established publishers who demand protection of their or their clients copyrighted works on one hand and the consumer who will use whatever product benefits them the most at the lowest price. I don't think that the DRM battlefield is as clear cut good vs. evil as many seem to believe. .mp3's that play on the computer will not play on the stereo and cannot be copied to a portable player. However digital content providers feel comfortable that no residents of this house are using any content that was not properly paid for.
Imagine if you will a future with two drastically different homes. In home A, there is a home computer running a MS OS that is similar to what we have today (before XP) that allows you to play any of your files on any computer in the house and doesn't have any restrictions on the software it uses and or the hardware you attach to it. This computer is linked to the television, stereo, and who knows what else!
In home B, there is a home computer running a MS OS that is linked to a remote server with administrative rights over all hardware and software additions and checks that all of the software and media on it is payed for and legitimate. This computer may or may not be hooked up to the home entertainment system due to conflicts that may arise with its playing of digital content over other hardware. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Home A is a place where consumers are happy and unfettered and these consumers have stayed with MS products due to their ease of use. However, the content distributers are unhappy with this set up.
Home B is a place where the consumer is not so happy because
This is the thin line...
Can MS satisfy content distributers with out alienating their consumer base? Without consumers of their products the protections are meaningless. Will consumers change over to another product that is less intrusive and controlling if such protections are put into place? Those content distributers have deep pockets and if they are entirely reliant on MS products to protect theirs MS will surely be in a very powerful and potentially never ending money making enterprise.
So MS right now is feeling the waters out, playing both sides of the coin to see what will give them the best profit model for the future. If DRM pushes people to a competitor then some incentives to stay loyal will certainly come into play. But what if... what if... MS goes the other way? What if by signing an allegiance with the content distributors MS can ensure that the only way to get content is through them and their products? Maybe... but again if the consumers get too pissed about that then new content distributors might just spring up. So you see, we don't necessarily need a revolution. The fact that we have freedom of choice is a very powerful check.
when the new Itunes for Windows service comes out before Christmas, that this patch will be required if you want to use the media you purchase through the store. Then, when everyone decides "to hell with DRM" and continues to download free songs on P2P, they will be able to convince legislators to shut down Kazaa, Gnutella, etc.
Also - something people gloss over - the IRM in Office 2003 is dependent on Windows Server 2003. You have to connect to a WS2K3 machine to use it. The beta version doesn't have this in place yet, so it uses Passport for the time being, but it's not as simple as Zip file passwords where the encrypting is self contained - you have to connect to a configured Windows Server in order to use it. It's hardly simple enough for the minimum wage secratary to accidentally password protect a document and forget what password she used. It's more like the secratary forgetting her Exchange password - the local sysadmin can help.
Schnapple
And surely Microsoft has done nothing to earn animosity and distrust. It must be more of that jealosy of success we keep hearing about.
Exactly why does this service require DRM? How would a lack of DRM lower functionality? If anything, iTunes has the least DRM restrictive format of all the offerings. Another thing it does right is allow the customer some ownership over the digital product they are purchasing. This all leads to numerous loopholes to circumventing what little DRM exists.
Yet the service is the most successful of its kind. Odd considering how much more DRM "functionality" consumers could get with other, and even longer established, services.
Look at the history of online music service. The first service able to deliver a large library of inexpensive tracks on demand with decent quality and no restrictions will eclipse anything else in the industry. Granted, the likes of the RIAA will resist this business model. And so they'll continue to create a market for the likes of Kazaa.
In the float-up-the-DRM-balloon phase, most average people aren't likely to react. And that's fine. Right now, all it does is enable the use/play of protected content. And, as noted many times in this discussion thread and in the article itself, it's an add-on to the OS. Don't want it? Don't use it.
However, we've seen many instances of MS rolling an add-on into a service pack and then requiring that the service pack be installed for any future updates. It's then possible to enable the DRM package to restrict the legitimate use of non-protected content and/or software because the end-user won't have any other choice. MS will be holding all the cards. But I think that this will be their undoing.
If an unwitting user was able to use unprotected content both with and without the patch, then can't after MS sends the kill-code to the DRM package, most people will simply say that their computer is broken. They won't know that the DRM software is to blame unless someone tells them. And if a user's computer is "broken" due to some patch that was installed for them by MS, you can bet that those people will start looking for alternatives. Add all of that to the bad publicity MS will get about being "Big Brother", and more and more users will start to think of alternatives to MS software. (Ok, they've already started getting that reputation on their own with the Product Activation snafu, but it certainly doesn't help their situation.)
The first likely route an affected customer will go is to buy a Mac, assuming that there's $1500 or more to spend in the family budget. Another option may or may not be Linux. It very much depends on how much it has progressed in terms of instant usability (can the family make the transition with little- to no difficulty?), and whether or not money is an issue. But I bet that Apple might step in at some point and start offering it's own OS to upset owners of "broken" PCs as an alternative.
That is, of course, assuming that they even want to release it for the ix86 chipset to begin with. My fingers are crossed.
My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
Oops. Unless an entity with monopoly power forces people through the "minor" inconveniences of DRM (with centralized "registration" - read monitoring) in order to use products that we have no choice but to both use, and keep current on upgrades.
Unless you are saying we can just optionally all switch away from Windows, Office, etc. right now. LOL. Not quite yet, anyway. Not unless you want to pay for the world-wide migration and personally assume the risks.
And then every other company jumps on the DRM bandwagon, because it's already there.
Then not installing your optional DRM makes not optionally giving your social security number quite easy by comparison.
This may not be the particular piece that does it, but this is coming.
This is the company that bugged Windows Media Player, so that it reports back what you watch, along with your GUID. Oh yeah, it's not personally identifiable. Until you register your product, and it can be cross-referenced, that is. "Oh yeah, uh, we need to check your DVD 'title and chapter information'. And your GUID. Huhuhuh." MS is bad news on privacy.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
In all the hullabaloo raised over declining media sales (by the music industry, may their toenails grow backwards), I haven't seen much discussion about demographics. The "boomer" generation (to which I belong) represented a big population blip in the retail music world, and we've pretty much stopped buying music. The 14-26 year age group of today is much smaller, and is fundamentally convinced that content should be free (or at least low cost). This trend will only intensify as they are alienated by the heavyhanded tactics of the Digital Rights crowd, and (worse) have to start paying for their own music with their own money, buy houses and cars, raise children and pay off student loans at the same time.
In essence, the music industry has lost two generations of music consumers, and is trying to retrain a third (today's 0-12 year olds) to pay whatever they ask for increasingly banal content.
But basically, the product sucks. In an attempt to capture the attention of the mass market, the industry has resorted to more and more outrageous marketing and content, with diminishing returns.
Consumers now spend a huge portion of their disposable income on entertainment. Disposable income has nowhere to go but down, given long term economic trends, including globalization and escalating energy costs. So the long term prognosis for the entertainment industry is poor. Digital rights managment is akin to bailing out the ocean with a teacup.
A few years ago, the nations phone companies were convinced that they were on the verge of becoming major players in the entertainment world because they controlled the phone lines and could deliver "content". Turns out they a) couldn't control communications technology b) didn't know beans about creating "content" and c) had a wildly exaggerated idea of how much time consumers were willing to spend sitting on the couch consuming phone company "movies on demand".
So let the marketing geniuses have their fun. They aren't smarter than everyone else and in fact may not be smarter than anyone else.
[Insert pretentious and semi-clever sig here: ______ ]