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 ..."
And Skynet has launched!!
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
Getcha free chains here! Bondage! Suffering! Leather gear, only the hottest from Microsoft! Trade-ins on unwanted liberty a specialty, test-whip today's amazing offer!
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
thnx MS makes my job soo much easier
Steel
There are none as blind as those who will not see.. (unknown)
Something tells me GNU/RMS is not going to like Microsoft's choice of acronyms.
tato (and tato only)
This post is strictly opinion, including the spelling.
So who cares if the OS supports DRM? It's up to the media companies to actually use it. Let them try to sell their crippled audio files. No one will buy it.
I, for one, welcome our new DRM overlords. And, as a trusted TV personality, I want to remind them that I can be useful in rounding up workers for their underground intellectual property lawsuit caves.
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.
anyone else notice the irony in it being called RMS?
How long before they make a patch like this mandatory? (well, as mandatory as they can make it.... like, bundling it in with a critical security update). Hmmm.... maybe that was their plan all along while they kept releasing all of their hole ridden tripe...
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.
Media Player 9 has had DRM options (defaulted ?) during the clickthrough installation since its release. I think more people will miss that then will install an unescessary windowsupdate patch . . .
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?
This is probably the rights management system included in office 2003 which lets you sign and limit future use of your word docs. This is what end users of your protected documents will have to install to read them. In this case, the 'rights' that are managed are the ones YOU grant. No proplemo with that.
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.
Everyone at the Office (TM) complains about having to use the cubicles next to the Windows (TM) where the mid-day Sun (TM) can be unbearable. I hope that this patch can help us respect each other's rights about sitting next to the Windows (TM)
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Windows 1984 and up is what it was supposed to say...
-By attempting the impossible we can achieve the absurd..
What applications at the moment would 'benefit' from this patch being installed, being "RM-aware" ?
Interesting that it supports Win98SE, since Microsoft itself doesn't support that OS anymore.
I, for one, welcome our new, um, overlordish overlords.
Good has been winning over for evil for too long. I'm glad that we will begin to see the balance restored.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
I wonder if this works on XP systems with "invalid" registration numbers? You can't install a service pack so your machine won't be one of those littering the net with virii, but we'll let you install this "rights management" software on your cracked OS so you can watch "protected" media?
I think they may also be embedding this in service packs, in addition to the standalone download, so you may easily install it without even knowing. I know for a fact that I saw this DRM component listed under Windows Update on a Windows 2000 box with SP3, but after it was updated to SP4 that component suddenly wasn't listed anymore. Hmmm....
Microsoft will be releasing their next major version of Windows under the name "Linus" in the tradition of their new "RMS" digital rights management client.
This really goes well with their subscription rates and open access to your wallet. With DRM not only can they charge what they want but limit who you can buy from. At some point even the DOJ must wake up -- oh yeah, Bush.
what an odd phrase...
"None of the information collected or generated as part of machine activation is personally identifiable. Microsoft will not retain any information collected during the activation process, except on a temporary basis where necessary to diagnose and resolve a problem with the Windows Rights Management service. Microsoft does not share any of the information collected during the activation process outside Microsoft."
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 have to admit, when I read the headline "Microsoft Offers a DRM Patch" I was pretty happy because I thought it meant they had issued a patch FOR DRM, in the same way a patch for "remote code execution exploit #502937" helps you avoid remote code execution exploit #502937.
...key-exchanging overlords.
(P.S. I also welcome the chance at fooling said overlords.)
What a bugger -- my Windows box is still running Win98 so I can't install the DRM patch. I've got to tell you that I feel shattered by this and will be upgrading to Windows XP immediately -- after all, I wouldn't want to feel left out now would I?
Perhaps this explains why WMP9 isn't supported on anything before Win98SE and why you can't play the latest WMV files on WMP7 or below. It will download the relevant codec but then claims that it's not correctly signed so wont install it.
Thank God for MP3 and MPEG that's all I say!
Note: You must be running a validly licensed Windows operating system to access the Windows Update Web site. just a little pin prick
That RFID chip injection will keep you free of virus and allow you to use out newest application for recieving SPAM. Now please bend over...
Ruck Riaa
For a start can we call it Digital Restrictions Management, then atleast people will understand what its really about: managing what restrictions someone has placed on a file on your own computer in your own home which is no-ones business to mess with but yours.
I only hope it all stays optional and any DRM systems are cracked quickly, ill donate CPU time to any distributed DRM cracking projects!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Remember Divx? (Not the codec, the DVD format that eventually got dropped by Circuit City)
Crippled CDs are being complained about en masse, and are now the focus of potential Congressional action.
DRM is very much at the upper right end of the envelope. You know, where the pioneers - and the cancel stamp - go.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Maybe this will spawn a new line of software to protect you M$ machine from M$. I could be called M$ Alarm.
"The universe is my dwelling place and my house is my only clothes! Why are you entering into my pants?" - Liu Ling
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!
The MS DRM client is an Active Directory client used for sharing Office 2003 files over networks. It talks to Office servers, SQL servers and SharePoint servers and is pretty much going to be no use to any home user who doesn't have an Active Directory server on their network. It has nothing at all to do with DRM in applications, OS's, media files, it is a network DRM client for sharing stuff with coworkers using Active Directory!
I've never wanted to become one of those conspiracy-theorists who thinks that any new thing Microsoft is an evil plot contrived for the purpose of making more money while at the same time screwing customers, using an already established near-monopoly to crush competition and screw customers, or just screwing customers. Unfortunately, one of these is usually the case.
Esoteric reference.
This may be only a taste of what is to come. DMCA, perpetual copyright extension, it's obvious that the large media companies (along with M$) own enough politicians that they can push almost any violation of digital rights through congress. How long before this sort of thing will be required for "national security" reasons making linux illegal? Apathy is a major problem because Joe computer user can't even keep his computer from being overrun by spyware, what does he know about digital rights?
... that DRM meant Deficating on RIAA's Management. Oh well...
A 'rights management' patch? My friend (let's call him Joe), who is not entirely untechnical (sophomore CompEng), actually pondered the following when peering over my shoulder: "Probably should upgrade. About time they did something about those damn viruses." He was under the impression that the 'rights' referred to controls he could set. A good name, indeed.
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
Ummm...this is IRM not DRM. The difference being that IRM is a rights management deal for Office documents, targeted at corporate environments. The download lets you view IRM protected documents without having Office 2003 installed, this isn't DRM, doesn't have anything to do with MPAA/RIAA, and is optional. So stop with the whining.
"Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
A future where the HSD ( homeland security department ) will dictate what you can use, both software and hardware, online.
It will only allow 'approved' applications to be on that list, right down to your lowly text editor.
Remember a terrorist might write a letter using Emacs..
So few people truly understand the ramifications of what is going on now in preparation for total control of everything, and everybody... its saddening.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
After all, there's no need to fight on their terms.
DRM = Digital Restriction Mechanisms
RMS = Remotely Managed Software (or Freaky OSS guy.)
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
If people are going to pirate software, they aren't going to suddenly BUY Linux as an alternative, especially since they can download it for free.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
In the 20 or so years of copy protection schemes, none have worked. Music, software, and movies are easy to copy due to their digital nature. Whenever this latest code comes in use, it will be hacked.
This is a perfect example of why people should turn Windows autoupdate off. EULA's you can click through, but pay attention to updates!!!!
----
Squirrel
Hm no thanks, ill wait for the hacked version that lets you access DRM'd files no matter what their restrictions are, much more useful. But then Microsoft will see how well its doing and try and release their own patch that does the same.. OOOPS!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
As soon as I hit the comments page, the first thing I did was search for the word "ironic"... but didn't find it. Luckily, I then did a search for 'RMS' and found your post using the word 'irony' twice. Ironic that no one used the word 'ironic', huh?
one hundred twenty
is just enough characters
to write a haiku
Lets hope the sharkbite and the missing foot convinces them it's a bad idea.
DRM isn't a bad system for controlling a client-server network. Don't want your confidential e-mails, documents and data being read by someone else? No problemo.
Problem comes in when you implement it on home users machines. A home users' machine is by definition a peer; both a client and a server of services on the internet. DRM is meant to turn a machine into a far more client oriented machine rather than a peer oriented machine by giving other people control of the media they give you. Meaning, the RIAA can burn cd's and when you buy a CD you may listen, not copy, backup etc a cd. Yet I somehow think that with Ms's incompetance there'll be a way around this, but that's besides the point I'm trying to make.
So where will this lead us? First rollout's going to be on corperate amercia's networks not on home users machines; this patch is basically a demo. Home users could care less about this kind of security; most people trust their families and if they don't, then there's a major problem with that family. Sure, people want firewalls and antivirus scanners, sandboxes and spyware hunting applications as far as keeping their machine from exploding, but as far as keeping your school report form your sister well that's just dumb.
Sure, kids don't want their parents seeing their pr0n collection or vice versa, but there are other tools available both withing winnt and outside to facilitate that kind of control(and even to an extent in win98). Plus there's the added "Teacher, it says "Drm error; you have no rights to open this file", how do I print the paper I made at home?." Although the school I went to had a strict secuity policiy; you get only 1 disk, that disk stays in the computer room, you are not allowed to put any disk in any computer, which later changed quite a bit as I hit highschool but you get the idea; it adds points of failure.
So what my guess is that they are either going to package it with a future os as an enabled, mostly harmless service that makes it difficult for you, for example, to copy a CD the RIAA doesn't want you copying. Much like how most people who run win2k aren't aware they are loging in under admin, so too will they be unaware they are running a DRM system and knowing MS, they'll leave it at that. There is nothing in Win2k that I am aware of that is forced on the user. WinXP home ed is a different story, but in Win2k you get admin control. Sure, it's not total control like with linux but the computer doesn't do things you don't want it to do; if you don't want it running tcpip you shut down the protocol and it's that simple.
Ms also knows full well that there are alternatives out there that people can and will use to bypass their security bullshit. Hell, I even have friends who'll pay me to mod chip their dvd player to get rid of the regional encoding. I also know people who play a lot of music on their computers and if all of a sudden they coulnd't they'd come straight to me and ask how to get around it.
In any case, if home users don't like it they will no doubt goto their geeky friends and ask "I can't copy this cd, what do I do?" and those geeky frineds will hand them a linux cd if that's the only alternative.
There's, thankfully, been a lot of developement as far as dumbing down linux so the average user can understand and utilise it. Sure, a lot of hardcore linux elitist assholes are going to complain, but when it comes right down to it most people are dumb and lazy. The next step is taking linux from, for example, a gaming engine to an actual game. We've got the engine complete, it's got documentation out the asshole, it's got different mods now we've got to make a coherent distrobution that's standards based that people can understand.
What do we have to watch out for? Firstly, if Ms gets control over what you can and cannot run, then they are most certainly not going to let you run competing products
Candy-Coated Knowledge
Installing this client allows RM-aware applications to work with Windows Rights Management Services (RMS)
Richard Stallman is going to be pissed
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - BF
I'll bet the MS is doing this so that their leaked E-mails and documents can't be used against them in the future.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
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
I see a lot of post here saying that this is just another reason to move away from Microsoft software to Linux or some other more open alternative. But moving away from their software isn't the only thing we should be doing. IMHO, each and every person or company that migrates away from MS needs to send a non-antagonistic, non-accusatory letter to both Chairman Bill, Steve Ballmer, and each member of the MS Board of Directors stating exactly WHY you switched. We assume that Microsoft knows why we switch but, the truth is, that they simply can't justify it to either themselves or their board when there are thousands of letters coming in.
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
...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.
You might want to start first with Linus.
"I want to make it clear that DRM is perfectly ok with Linux!"
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
And for future reference you might want to invest $3.95 in the Elements Of Style. There was nothing at all inappropriate about my use of quotes. You need to lay off the cocaine or pot or whatever it is that's making you so stupid.
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.
It's all about the monopolies. Suppose one company decided to sell this DRM stuff. It would never catch on; it doesn't add any value. Nobody would install it. Now, suppose one music company wanted DRM. They'd sell their music with DRM, and they'd instantly lose to others who sold it unencumbered.
Unfortunately, there's a monopoly in both the music industry and the operating systems industry. Microsoft can run any software it wants on 90% of America's desktops. If the RIAA decides they're pushing DRM, there's nobody else you can buy from. (Yes, Linux and indie, but they're not in a controlling position.) So we're screwed.
Litigious bastards
DRM is used in Linux kernel on desktop computers - Direct Rendering Module is needed for open source implementation of hardware accelerated OpenGL.
RMS is used mostly for marketing - eeryone knows Richard Stallman.
And finally - RM is upcase of very important Unix command, which allows to remove both applications and copyrighted data.
Damn Microsoft, must you steal everything? Try to think about your own acronyms. Try to create something instead stealing all the time.
oh no! my citizenship! i'm not supposed to get freedom on it!
"73% of quotes on the Internet are made up" -Ben Franklin
Linus has said about the DRM issue.
Zealots on both sides of the DRM debate can bite
my fleshy ass.
Really if I wish to manage my rights on files I use public key encryption. That way I can confidently know what really I am allowing access to. I dont need nor would I want any rights management Microsoft give me.
As for Joe user never noticing. I think Joe user will. If my memory serves people really did not like the activation process that came with Windows XP. This seems to be taking it just another step further.
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.
You mean any newer (media) software written for Windows and published by Microsoft will eventually tie-in with the RM APIs. Though Microsoft makes the official Windows_Media(tm) player, Microsoft doesn't make the only media player for the Windows platform. The DivX media player doesn't have to use the DRM API. Neither does the QuickTime media player; by early 2004, it'll start using the iTunes DRM infrastructure instead. The world of sound recordings and audiovisual works playable on Windows is not limited to just Microsoft's own *.wma and *.wmv; it encompasses *.avi, *.mp?, *.mov, and other formats as well.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Thus far, I have been able to get along with everyone else in the world by using Mozilla and OpenOffice. Both projects have done very well providing compatibility with files formatted for proprietary platforms (HTML for IE, .doc attachments, etc.). I can communicate with my friends, family members, co-workers, bank, etc. without any real inconveniences.
.doc attachment that I simply cannot read, not because the format cannot be reverse engineered, but rather because I do not have the keys to decrypt it. Obtaining those keys or circumventing the "copy protection scheme" is against the law thanks to the DMCA.
.doc file, or my bank requires that I run a DRM'd web browser to do my online banking, I am left with no choice but to refuse to do business with them.
I have been able to use Free Software while acting as a functional unit of society. This has been possible because of reverse engineering efforts by members of the Free Software community. The problem is, reverse engineering can only go so far.
With this whole DRM thing, I am just waiting for the day that I receive a
This is the breaking point. This is where those who use Free Software are left with no recourse. We cannot simply reverse engineer the file formats or find ways around the technology, since that will make us criminals. Now, when my insurance company sends me a DRM'd
I will not be coerced into running non-Free software or allowing some third party to exercise exclusive control over my own private property (my computer equipment). The DRM thing is about the closest thing that I can think of that reflect the "Mark of the Beast" that is spoken of in the book of Revelations in the Bible - those without the mark (read: DRM) will not be able to engage in commerce in society (even if you don't believe that the Bible is true, this is an interesting literary reference). I don't mean to sound apocalyptical or anything, but I thought that this parallel was just too uncanny to be left unnoticed.
I for one am prepared to go through some personal inconveniences on the basis of principle here. The minute someone demands that he wrest control of my computer equipment from me as a precondition for communicating with me, I will refuse to communicate with him. I will make it very clear that my freedom cannot be so easily relinquished.
An unjust law is no law at all. - St. Augustine
"It's for the children"
Look who posted the article. I think this has to do with "Active Server" and is nothing to get excited about but is a great political troll as usual.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
Just place a fresh DRM patch on your upper arm or back for no more than 24 hours at a time. With the gradual step-down patches, you can be DRM free in just six weeks!
However, Microsoft is referring to its implementation of DRM as RMS, which Mr. Stallman would expand as Restrictions Management Services. Windows users who don't read Slashdot are likely to confuse these initials with Mr. Stallman's initials and think Mr. Stallman endorses Restrictions Management Services.
Will I retire or break 10K?
>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 actually is.
I don't use Win XP because I don't like its activation scheme. I chose not to use it.
I don't use Word/Excel/whatever on my Windows 98 computer because I don't want to use it. I chose not to use it.
If a piece of software does require RM API then I will decide if I want to use it or not.
>It won't be as simple as "don't use it."
Why isn't it? How many non-MS OS users have already done exactly this?
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
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.
MS/SCO are trying to paint users of other OS's - as "IP" pirates.
Q: Where do you put your iP?
A: In your iLoo.
Will I retire or break 10K?
On one hand, we could potentially see more digital content via DRM. On the other, it's kind of like being able to see movies ONLY if we go to the theaters.
*Sigh*
I do have one optimistic hope, though. Wasn't it Princess Leia who said "The more you tighten your grip, the more will slip through your fingers"? Well, I think that applies here. If it's such a pain in the butt to have movies on your PC, then Indie movie makers will have an extra boost. "For $5, you can buy our movie DRM free. We'd rather not treat all our customers like they're thieves."
In that light, I kind of look forward to it. I think the content industry is selfish enough that it'll blow up in their faces.
"Derp de derp."
The digital consumer rights groups did revolt a while ago, and they got the U.S. Congress to suspend action on the CBDTPA.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Logic, reason, and calm rationality in a Slashdot discussion? Burn him at the stake, boys!
"Sufferin' succotash."
Of what? 2K is up to SP4 and XP is up to SP1 already... ok, 2003 server maybe, but such a patch for an OS like that would not matter much... provided they are not trying to restrict the serving of files with out a valid license.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Clients don't have to use DRM in their Word documents. It's completely optional.
The fear that many users will express here is that in a future version, Microsoft will set up a future version of Microsoft Word to enable digital restrictions management by default on all new documents. The unexpressed goal here is to nip it in the bud.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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?
No, of course not. That would be anti-competitive behavior abusing their monopoly status.
Oh wait...
But seriously, it's conceivable that they could fold the DRM into the API itself, so that, for example, the API wouldn't function without some token from the DRM component. Now you have to follow the rules to use their API... and of course you can't just spoof the token, becuase even if you figured out how, you'd be violating the DMCA.
It may sound paranoid, but on the other hand I can already hear all the marketing spin.
Don't you care about your rights?
Even if you don't care about your own, are you so shameless as to shout down those who do?
Here's a brief explanation of why Fair Use rights are important:
"Why does the public have a "fair use" right to use copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission?
At the doctrine's core is a fundamental belief that not all copying should be banned, particularly in socially important endeavors. The Supreme Court explained, "the fair use doctrine exists because copyright law extends limited proprietary rights to copyright owners only to the extent necessary to ensure dissemination to the public."
Copyright law serves as a regulatory scheme designed to balance the competing rights of creators to exploit their work, entrepreneurs to receive a return on their investment, and the public's interest in gaining access to works. The fair use doctrine and other public rights are designed to further the ultimate goal of disseminating knowledge to the public. In developing an information infrastructure that serves the public interest and encourages the open flow of information, it is essential to continue to balance the competing interests and preserve the public's fair use rights in an electronic environment as it has in more traditional formats."
Understanding Fair Use Rights
This brings up an interesting question and a challenge to the OSS community: Why NOT create an open source service that would mimic DRM but allow anything to run?
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
I have to agree everyone needs to chill. The problem is that most people have it backwards. Installing DRM software does not prevent you from doing anyting... It allows you to do the things that require it. NOT installing it it what will stop you as it prevents you from using any programs/media that require it. Jorgie
If we can put an end to software piracy of Microsoft business costs will skyrocket and companies will quickly look for alternatives such as linux. Its pathetic how many people don't realize that piracy is what keeps microsoft very high up top. Sure a few people will pay for windows and other software after they can't pirate it but its more likely that more will find an alternative..
Microsoft turned it down.
Seems that they decided that their DRM patch is superior to my KMFA patch..
Well, I tried..
Actually, digital restrictions management protects authors[1] from consumers in several ways:
The "anti-consumer" sentiment toward DRM typically relates to reasons 2 and 3.
[1] U.S. copyright law uses "author" and "works" instead of "creator" (n) and "content" (n). Mr. Stallman agrees that we should use the same terminology used by the letter of the law.
Will I retire or break 10K?
"Mrs. Mornumumurmn..."
"What?"
"Mrs. Farrrnnnmmurnnmm..."
"Who's there?"
"Candygram"
I'm not sure if they monitor this or not, but you can change your Windows Update preferences to not show certain updates (click the Personalize Windows Update link). I wonder if everyone just went and chose to hide this update if they'd get the hint. Even if it's not a monitored thing, at least this way you wouldn't have to look at it onece a week when a new patch is released.
It wouldn't suprise me if it was in the next 2K service pack.
More like "50MB service pack". I wish the next Windows 2000 service pack were only 2 KiB in size.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Uh I'll Ctrl-K the parts that implement DRM. Can you edit the XP sourcecode? No. Can you edit the Linux sourcecode? Yes. So I don't see the problem.
My other car is first.
$168 million dollars is nothing to write home about?
When did Linux advocacy become so spiteful and selfish?
"Sufferin' succotash."
...I just get the feeling that Linus/RMS/GNU Community's definition of DRM or "Trusted Computing" is a little diffrent than say, oh I dunno dancing monkey boy's.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
I suspect that MS is starting to test the waters with this DRM client, which will I assume be included in the next versions of almost all of MS' products. MS is not stupid. Their marketing department will push this as a plus for security ("If your app uses MS DRM it will be more secure", "Office documents can only be viewed by those you choose") and privately amongst RIAA and MPAA types they will push it as a money maker for digital content providers. The joke is that while you can bet your silly ass that the same people who think that the latest from MS is desirable now, will be accepting this junk then. But the only ones who stand to make any money off of this will be MS of course, because it is almost just as sure that no more music or videos will be sold online just because the RIAA and MPAA now think it's ok to do so.
programs and files will start requiring it.
And the competitor's programs will not require it. I understand about Microsoft's monopoly on operating systems that are compatible with the apps on Best Buy stores' shelves, but Microsoft still doesn't have a monopoly on Win32 compatible office software. For instance, when somebody asks me to pirate him MS Office, I download and install Sun's OpenOffice.org suite instead.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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.
But information isn't a consumable no matter how much corporations might want it to be, nor should it ever be treated as such. To do so is, ultimately, to turn us into mental slaves.
I swear, if a quick and easy method existed for making someone forget something, its use would be mandated by governments faster than you could say "intellectual property". Pray that day never comes (but, of course, it will, since it's merely a matter of technology).
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Figures this uninformed garbage would be marked "+5 Insightful." I'm sick of this misconception about information rights management. Slashdot even posted a breathless headline decrying that Microsoft was locking people out!
.doc files that your clients will invariably send.
People, this is just a button you can click to set up permissions on the document you create, so, for instance, you can designate other people with those rights to be able to open your document.
It's off by default, it's a completely a user intervention to turn it on, and it has nothing to do with spreading any monopolies.
This means that it is impossible to build a non-MS piece of software that can read
This is a togglable option you set for documents in your company. You have to have an information rights server, and you set things up so that only people you designate permission to can read the file.
Again, I iterate, because Slashbots completely ignore this point--this has nothing to do with a proprietary format. It is all about allowing the creator of the document to set protected rights permissions if they want to.
In other words, Microsoft is using DRM to enforce their monopoly "by name."
Completely wrong.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I'll let the idiots who actually fall for it to pay me to clean their systems after they are done being stupid. I need the income, OK? Times is hard!
db
Cig:
ôô
Office 2003. In other words, this is another non-issue that all the Linux trolls are pulling their hair out over. This just has to do with being able to view rights-protected Office 2003 documents without Office 2003.
But, of course, Slashdot says "Microsoft Offers S DRM Patch." Let's ignore facts for page hits and controversy! I'm surprised all you people who decry corporations and their biased bullshit allow the OSDN-owned Slashdot to continue the Microsoft troll articles daily.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Microsoft is giving us the opportunity to activate the much-anticipated Windows RM technology on our computers--absolutely free--enabling "certain features of the software," and they've given us their word that they won't collect any personally identifiable information. Isn't that enough for you people?
Man, if Microsoft started handing out bags of money on the street while nursing sick puppies back to health, you guys still wouldn't trust them.
Me, I'm going to install it right now. I can't wait to see what sort of new and exciting functionality is added to my com--[PLEASE ENTER A VALID CREDIT CARD NUMBER TO COMPLETE THIS POST]
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Except when Slashdot users create their replacement terms (digital restrictions management, restricted computing platform alliance, crippled disc, etc.), they're actually using the most ordinary dictionary definitions of the replacement words. "Rights" in "DRM" is doublespeak for "a contract granting a license under a government-granted monopoly", and few people understand the military meaning of "trusted" that the TCPA uses.
Marketspeak is ++ungood.
Will I retire or break 10K?
It's just one more reason I'm becoming completely unmotivated to work in corporate I.T.
I've been an "I.T. guy" ever since my first job, and frankly, I banked on "PCs and DOS/Windows solutions" as the stuff one needed to keep up with to retain a decent job.
Somewhere along the way (I think roughly around the time Microsoft started pushing Active Directory integrated with Exchange 2000, but that's far from the ONLY factor), I started becoming disillusioned with the whole thing. I had always tinkered with Linux as a curiousity and fun "alternative OS" to use at home - but couldn't spark any interest in it where I worked.
I decided to "rock the boat" a little bit, building Linux-based thin clients PCs out of old, depreciated systems being taken out of service, and asking employees to try using them on a "trial" basis. I had few complaints, and got most of the ones I did have ironed out in short order. (Mostly, people whining about needing support for their scroll wheel mice, stuff like that.)
I think it threatened my co-workers though, who were die-hard "MS only!" people. My boss was "on the fence" about the whole project, basically not wanting to stop me from experimenting - yet uneasy about it disrupting his little "happy family" of I.T. employees.
Next thing I knew, I was let go. By this time, the job market was quickly drying up, and I spent a long time collecting unemployment checks, and trying to find another, similar job to no avail.
I finally found work with Apple Mac systems. Wow, what a difference! Problem is, it's a small mom and pop place that's hanging on by a shoestring. My hours got cut back to part-time recently, because he couldn't make ends meet otherwise. It's really disappointing more folks haven't yet discovered the things Apple has done/is doing with OS X.
But anyway, here in the present, I see the I.T. job market SLOWLY starting to open back up, but when I read the job descriptions, my stomach churns. I don't even want to apply for most of them! It just seems like signing up to administer hundreds (or thosands?) of users on Exchange email while helping develop roll-outs of the latest MS technologies is like signing one's death warrant.
This DRM garbage is just another nail in the coffin, the way I see it. I can just imagine the fun it'll be explaining to the higher-ups why everyone's locked out of hundreds of important documents because Joe Schmoe encrypted them and then got laid off/fired/took a vacation/whatever. It's already insane enough trying to keep up with all these security fixes (and fixes for broken fixes!), stop the floods of email from woms/virii, and all the other MS headaches.
Obviously, there are still plenty of I.T. folks out there happy and willing to take on these jobs, risks and all. But maybe all my experience has made me too jaded? I'm about to throw in the towel. I don't have nearly enough "real world experience" using the OS's I see as superior solutions (Solaris, Linux, BSD, etc.) to get a decent paying job supporting/administering them. I spent too much time in the MS camp for that. I think I can handle the Mac OS X support quite well, but nobody's hiring for that. MS's current offerings give me the creeps....
MS can't start DRM now. OSS isn't ready. If they wait a year we'll be in a much better position to come up and say "we don't (and really can't) do restrictive DRM.
Maybe that's ms's plan.
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.
You rule.
This discussion from microsoft shows where they are planning to go with this. It is going to be part of the Windows 2003 server line. Or you can use microsoft's own service (which uses passport) if you don't want to run your own server. And all of this does tie in to office 2003 as it looks like the first product to take full advantage of it. Talk about vendor lock in....
one word: palladium
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.
Of course I was skeptical. A better title would be "Microsoft offers a DRM virus".
And there you go. Linus may not like DRM, but he doesn't see a reason to stop anyone from working it in to Linux.
Hardly a ringing endorsement for DRM.
There are 3 RM downloads at the MS site. The first is the one in the article - the Client piece. There are also a part for the Server and SDKs for CLient and Server. The Server SDK is not available to just anyone. MS has to license you. They do this via a form of their security Certificate Server. The SDK lets 2 users connect for development work, but beyond that you need a license to code for it.
.NET, SOAP, IE 6 and IIS. This all has the feel of an end-to-end "solution" that they will market to the RIAA and MPAA types. It looks like a substantial infrastructure needs to be in place in order to enable Rights Management content, and the consumer^H^H^H^H user will access protected material by going to a specially engineered web site using IE 6. They also mention a "lockbox", whatever that is.
They mention some of the technologies used: COM+, an Active Directory server,
Your average hobbyist programmer or shareware programmer isn't going to be able to participate in this. Something tells me the licensing fees won't be cheap. The "right" to access protected material obviously come from certificates, and that model of PKI has proved to be troublesome at best. Furthermore, the "rights" being protected by this setup are those that perpetuate the aims of the RIAA, the MPAA and the like.
They're not about to let anybody get in on this protection racket. The certificates will no doubt be VERY expensive for the content producers so that the barrier to entry is high. They don't want some kid in Hong Kong to encode his music files using this technology and then give them away to others, fully within the confines of this system. This is really bad, because anyone even tinkering around with the technology without a license will automatically become a criminal under the DMA.
Microbloat is going to add more bloated, lame, trouble-making software to their kernel. Let them. The tighter Gov Tarkin makes his grip, the more users will slip through his fingers.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
$210? The version for students and teachers should price at $140, iirc.
The upgrade version is around $220, and you can get the full and new version around $360 with minimal usage of Google. And that's professional. Considering that Office includes Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Access, Publisher, and Outlook, that comes out to $60 a program at the absolute most.
I mean, yeah, you could pay $500, and get each program at $75 or so... but, ummm... that's comparable to WordPerfect Suite... and, really, a totally normal market price for productivity software. Especially a professional quality one - which is, frankly, more than a lot of people need. Hardly any non-professionals are going to use Access. Most of them won't even use Excel, Publisher, or Powerpoint. Outlook Express is fine for most people. All most people use out of Office is Word. And most of them could use Wordpad. We're talking about what is really designed as a product to be purchased by businesses.
It's hardly Gates's fault that people buy far more powerful programs than they need. And, really, unless you're going to fault him for running a business, and seeking to make profits, it's tough to understand why you say Office is overpriced. Unless you want to go on a rant about how corporations are necessarily evil.
But in that case, please include your address for your complimentary box of tinfoil.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
"Doing something decent now means all misdeeds hereby pardoned," God reportedly announced today. More at 11. Stay tuned.
I've got issues with companies that try and 'slip it under the radar' like MS. Perhaps MS should realize that people like me who admin Windows machines, and switch to Mac are going to tell everyone who requests 'Computer Help' to grab a Mac. No viruses. Easy. Powerful. And sexy-hot. :)
With the advent of the G5 kicking ass and taking names, there is less and less reason to go with insecure, unpredictable, untrustworthy Windows.
What I find most troublesome is that Microsoft seems to be taking the lead in providing a means of control that goes beyond the ACL approach that has been traditional until now. It's an astute move for M$. If the rest of the world doesn't come up with an alternative, it will become all that much harder to dislodge Windows from the corporate desktop. And M$ will have found a way to tax accessing your own documents.
Frankly, I think it's good that a major corporation is finally taking such a keen interest in the personal lives of their customers. DRM allows them to keep and eye on us, be our "Big Brother" if you will, just to make sure everything's okay. I don't know about you, but I feel safe and secure in the hands of such a responsible company.
CC Licensed Serialized Story and Podcast: Ingenioustries
already has DRM
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Except... slashdot is immune to Goodwin's "law" :)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
oh crap.... did i just install what i think i did? try to uninstall it but it says its only .45 megs, funny when i downloaded it i thought it was a whole lot bigger.......
But what is not a minor thing is trivializing the horrors of the holocaust by comparing it to a software patch.
He/she is not trivializing the matter. If you understood his point you wouldn't say that. You know what was probably the most important thing that happened. It was stripping the Jews of property and putting them in concentration camps. This was probably the SINGLE most important thing that happened to them. If you wanted to stop the genocide, you HAD to stop that first step. Once they were put in camps, it was very difficult to reverse. Of course you don't realize that and will label me as antisemitic or something...
At least the holocaust deniers admit that, if it had happened, it would have been a horrible thing...
hmm... most holocause deniers deny it simply because it happened. You'll find that most--albeit not all--of these deniers are neo-Nazis. How come some dude off the street isn't into this holocaust denial stuff?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
enjoy. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Let's see, Windows Rights Management Service ... WRMS ... That sounds an awfully lot like a copyright infringement on the title of one of Orson Scott Card's novels.
...
... and lots more ...
I think that Card should sue MS for this.
There's gotta be a lot of organizations that use this acronym. Let's see what Google says
Washburn Rural Middle School.
Will Rogers Middle School.
Winter Road Maintenance System.
Wood River Middle School.
WRMS FM
Water Resources Management Study.
Looks like MS has lots of problems with this acronym. And they wouldn't want to infringe on anyone else's Intellectual Property, now would they? Of course not!
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
And if you don't want to support the Nazis, then don't. They'll go away. Seems to me the US tried that once...
The Holocaust was horrible. That so many people and countries sat by and watched it happen really upsets me. Watching people and countries sit by and watch our rights being stripped away upsets me too.
Add remove programs and away she goes. Not that it's still not there running in the background. And Mod down for off topic, but it's so funny I can't help it. www.asksnoop.com. Shizzlify slashdot and prepare to cry.
Who do it with actual prisons.
Don't kid yourself that not being able to listen to your Backstreet Boys CD on your Windows box is the same. Of all the places to have to remind you, there are many alternatives.
(For now.)
Carthago delenda est!
I have not downloaded that new patch yet, but for a while now, I have watched many apps checking with M$ to see if they have permission to run. At least I THINK that is what is going on. They always check with crl.microsoft.com instantly after startup. These are just random apps and it looks like the OS is doing the checking, not the apps.
It started doing this after I downloaded some of those patches for those damn RPC worms. Me thinks they snuck the DRM thing beta in those patches and this is to fix a few items.
It wouldn't totally eliminate my choices, but it would make them more difficult. It's like Word documents - I choose not to use Word, but it's already difficult, what with imperfect filters and so fourth. DRM, especially Microsoft's brand, would make any interoperability both technically and legally impossible. I don't want to see the masses using a homogenous, single, outrageously expensive (no competition), completely closed and encrypted document format, and then calling me a dirty hippie because I don't want to play along.
Litigious bastards
..starting with paedophiles (Megan's law in USA, and tagging in UK) exposing these specific groups after they have served their sentence. Next it will be all released sex offenders, then violent criminals, and finally those with misdemeanors. A little at a time, soon all 'potential criminals' will be tracked, just like 'potential terrorists' are starting to be tracked now.
Heil Gates!
hey!
I have been emailing microsoft 5x a week requesting an update like this. I need more restrictions in my life. After I got out of the clink, I realized that having freedom and the option to choose what I want to do was just dangerous. Now, if they incorporate some micro (or even macro) payment stratagies into this DRM stuff then I'll feel like I paid multiple times to view or use the same materials. pfft
...but when MS controls 85% of the country's desktops
Big deal. Adobe and MS give away e-book readers. AOL gives away access software. Getting people to buy the paid content will be the trick. AOL is losing share. They gained ground as they were pretty much the first national dialup ISP. Now that they have copmetition, free software isn't keeping them from shrinking. Unfortunately paid access stuff has to compete with already in place free stuff. They do not have the only content without free competition. Many early markets were served by AOL only. DRM does not have this headstart in a world of free content. The pay stuff has to advertise heavly to get people to spend the money.
If your company requires DRM or you want to play DRM media (not unlike a DVD, DAT, Sony Mini-Disk) you will need a DRM machine. Due to it's limited capibilities, it should be limited to a single use type function much as a DVD player, or cable TV box is now. For the rest of your computing, use a primary general purpose computer which does not have the serial copy restrictions of DVD, DAT, Sony Mini-Disk, etc. I'll have to use a general use computer to do my editing and creating. This is doubly true if it needs released in an open format.
There will be programming that can only be viewed on the TV in the living room. There will be other programming that can be played on your RIO, in your DVD player, in your car.... As long as there is indi content, the DRM stuff will have harder time entering the market. Don't forget the Circuit City DVD experiment, full priced E-Books at Barns and Noble and of course the tiny press play optical. People don't pay full price for perishable media. They know it will go bad and won't invest in it for the personal library. The last DVD I bought, (Jackie Chan flick at Wal-Mart) I spent less than $6 for it. Selling a DRM protected newspaper article for $2 with an experation and with backup problems will be a very hard sell. Some corporate stuff that is sensitive may have a place, but for general consumption entertainment, it won't fly at high prices.
Hey RIAA, Why can I find Jackie Chan videos for under $6, but no good music for less? Don't call loss of sales due to competetion for the entertainment buck a loss to piracy.
The truth shall set you free!
Yes, it's late.
I initially read the title as "Microsoft Releases an ARM patch". I didn't know that they wer going to try to embrace and extend the nicoderm market...
The patch is optional only for today. Long term an optional, limited DRM system makes no sense.
Microsoft just bought out nicotrol. I can just see the ads now for the combo patch...
Addicted to nicotine? Feel the need to restrict access to your grocery list to only Office 2003 extra special addition? You're in luck! The new nicotine in the mouth DRM up the ass patch is now available! Simple place one a patch either in your mouth or up your ass when ever you get a craving... and the commercial goes on
Well, at least it will be better than feminene ads. I could care less if your new maxi pad model has even more absorbent wings then your freaking competitor. I'm trying to eat my hot pocket god damn it
bring back family guy!
my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
Sometimes you just have to sit back and laugh at how much irony one can create without noticing.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
This brings up an interesting question and a challenge to the OSS community: Why NOT create an open source service that would mimic DRM but allow anything to run?
.nfo file with PC ascii art that is only properly displayed in a dos window.
Perhaps because it would indeed be circumventing copy protection. Such a program if created with the proper credits would like like painting big bold friendly "sue my ass" on the developers.
Such software would be best released under the flag of a pirate group, with an appropertly garish
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
begging for a legal and legit music distribution one second and then cursing D/RM the next... you cant have it both ways. this isnt a bad thing.
Umm Apple is selling a package. It works with the I-Pod. What people would like is...
Believe it or not.. MP3's! They can be burned on CD's, will work in Winamp's jukebox, work in DVD players that play MP3's. Take Apple I-Tunes and put it up next to a NON-DRM MP3 site for the same price then see how many Apple folks drop I-Tunes for the other service. It's because they would like to play MP3 CD's in the living room, on their PC, in their car, in their $35 walkman CD/MP3 player, their existing RIO or other MP3 player. I-Tunes is working only due to the lack of a legal DRM-free alternative. Bring on the competition and I-Tunes will feel the force of a free market. Lots of people don't have an I-Pod and don't want to spend the money especialy if they already have another player. (I have all above mentioned players that I don't want to replace due to cost.) Providing media only in formats not compatible with my players is poor marketing. Providing media in the well established standard format will reach a much larger target audiance. Why are they trying to get the market to change instead of selling to it?
Here is an idea.. Just try it.. Put out an XM receiver. Put on an optical output that can be used for ripping to MP3. Make it legal to do so and provide the software with the subscription. Transporting the receiver is not an option for many people. I would love to load a CDR of MP3's to play at work. The receiver doesn't work in the middle of a cubicle farm. Don't make me buy another MP3 type player to deal with DRM. Just give me the affordable MP3's. Getting affordable MP3's is what the whole Napster and Kaza thing are all about. The RIAA still hasn't figured it out. The bucks are out there, cut loose the apron strings a little and see what happens... The MPAA has a head start on this one.
The truth shall set you free!
Well, it *is* required to set rights regarding who can open Office 2003 documents, mails, etc. in order to protect sensitive documents. So "rights" isn't a bad choice of word at all IMHO.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I wondered what that M$ patch I've gotten in my email 1000+ times in the past couple days was. Funny that I thought it was just a normal worm. I see that it's Microsoft trying to send me a patch that will only let secure programs (like Outlook) run on my computer. If I apply all 1000 of these patches will my system finally stop getting email viruses?
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
I see the problem coming when the unknowing masses start downloading this patch and thus making all of our "it's just an optional patch" handwaiving seem like inaction. So here's my advice: start sending those stupid f**king "I've given you a virus!" emails to people, like the one about jdbgmgr.exe (the teddybear icon). Except instead of being aimed at system lint, say it's this new patch's executable. The brainless masses will eat this up as they usually do, and all of /.'s readers will get it filtered out of their masterfully protected inboxes anyway.
Maybe DRM is an argument for technical know-how haves and have-nots, in the end: If you care to share, figure it out. Otherwise, DRM you to hell :)
evolution IS god.
ummmm....
You need this installed to view protected documents even if you DO have Office 2003 installed....
But, you're right, they'll probably change that for the general public release.
Due to recent events, sig is no longer valid - this placeholder will be in effect until a suitable replacement is found.
Look, set aside all you people's big-brother fears, I think you should learn a little more about MS DRM.
Like, if I send some sensitive information through Outlook, using DRM I can now block the reciever(s) from any action but just read the text on screen. E.g. the print-screen, any snapshot feature, the forward buttons etc are blocked. Thus my sensitive information got just a little safer, right? Focus on invention and you will see some points for DRM.
You need this installed to view protected documents even if you DO have Office 2003 installed....
I think that's because Office 2003 doesn't come with this feature. It supports it, but the client isn't installed with the package. At least it wasn't for me. I could neither view, nor create protected documents with a standard install of Office 2003. It popped up a dialog requesting me to download this client when I tried to.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Prediction:
Windows Rights Management System (RMS) will eventually give way to Windows Everybody Supports Rights management (ESR)
What sort of access does the patch have? Has anyone tested the permissions the "kernel" allows it?
Hmmm -
1. send word doc IRM enabled
2. RM software reads it and crashes/overflows/executes stuff for you
3. You own them profitably
The Singularity is closer than you think
Quant
B.G. "own" from the last reports : 48 Billion. 168 Million is : 0,35% of his total worth. The day everybody giving up 0.35% of its total worth get a nice written article then I will start reading all those. In the mean time it might be generous from B.G. but frankly he might not see the difference at the end of the month. OTOH I know people which give as much as 1 to 2% of their total worth (I am not even speaking of income here) to charity. Where is the article to praise such people fo generosity and selfless ? Absolute sum means something , but if you want to speak about how generous is somebody , let us speak of %.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
No, they'll make you drink your own poison.
Scenario:
Someone buys some RIAA CD and put it in the computer, of course they don't just play music anymore they launch flash but this time it tells them it needs to validate the CD and you can get the patch easily from Microsoft. Click here!
Or
You want to watch some movie clip at atomfilms, but it won't run without the DRM patch. Click here!
Or
The NYTimes won't load without DRM protection, afterall anyone can just copy and paste their HTML. Click here! Don't worry if we make revisions or anything, its just like paper. Read the corrections section in the morning.
Big content and information control types are going go ecstatic as this slowly rolls out. Third-world dictators can put down their national firewalls and just use the built-in DRM patch before accessing anything on the WAN.
Its a win/win situation for those against open information, standards, and fair competition.
Here in the Netherlands, a consumer is allowed to create copies of digital distributed media for personal use (so you are allowed to copy the CD you bought so you can also listen to it in your car). Now, if some DRM forbids me to copy a music file so I can also listen to it in my car, it is not obeying the law, because by LAW I am entitled to copy the file contents!
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
The idea is that the DRM machine lives inside the general purpose machine. Normal content (like old mp3s) is not affected by the DRM machine. DRM content can only be accessed through the DRM machine. If you don't have any DRM content, you won't even notice the DRM machine is there.
Richard Stallman should probably sue them.
my bad, i'll mention stalin next time instead.
...its more than likely that it will never occur that you can only view protected content via things like media player. Are you seriously telling me that you believe MS will make it impossible for people to watch their home videos on their computers? Or, are you saying that I won't be able to record myself playing the piano, making speeches, or otherwise recording audio and play it back to myself? I'm sorry, but I just dont see this happening. Ever.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Windows Rights Management Services (RMS)" Richard M. Stallman must be pissed > right now :-)
Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
Oh please, don't just blindly throw all eggs in one basket. MS-RMS is designed solely "...for people who need to protect sensitive Web content, documents, and e-mail...". In other words: MS-Office output.
What's wrong with that and how it's connected to RIAA?
Instead of blaming MS for doing actually something good (at this time), perhaps it's just about time to think of Linux' answer to the problem of protection of sensitive corporate data. Otherwise, very soon, there will be no place for Linux on corporate desktops.
actually its very similar to DRM technology and is being legally mandated to stop lawsuits related to Identity Theft etc. Its the same type of technology the media industry is using to protect their assets online. IRM=DRM.
They're not going to turn on DRM by default, because it's really going to piss off their userbase. You can't just tick and checkbox saying 'DRM' - you have to make a whole load of decisions on what rights you want to give to which groups of people and for how long. I suppose they could set it to default to 'let me read this only', but it would cause such a huge amount of confusion I don't suppose they'd dare try.
DRM requires work from the user that most people are only ever going to bother with if they really have to.
At last! A patch to help rid your computer of the misery of DRM! Just stick one on the side of your system box and watch as the effects of DRM become a distant memory. A GaTeS Product.(sic)
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
Hear hear. But having said all that, the masses are already calling us dirty hippies for playing with Linux and Apple and not playing along.
This is the golden opportunity for Apple and for Linux to get some more market share, should the price of DRM Windows shoot through the roof. Perhaps we should be encouraging this trend?
Personally, if it were economically viable and if I had the time to spend on re-educating myself I would be off the Windows bandwagon ASAP, as I have wasted too much of my life reinstalling Windows.
More recently, I have spent the better part of the weekend trying to get 2 computers on WinXP that are 3 feet away from each other to see each other on the network, despite the fact that one of them can access the other's FTP server. Having accomplished this one of the computers decided to ditch 1/2 the RAM and ignore the network card...
In contrast, my friend doesn't even know what the inside of his Mac looks like...
I could create and view protected documents with beta two, maybe something has changed in RTM, but with my beta two copy you don't need this plugin thing.
"Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
Oh really? I was at a school last week and several teachers back from sabbatical all over the world had brought back DVDs to show the students examples of foreign filmmaking and culture. I had to break them the bad news that the reason their DVDs won't play here isn't broken DVD players, it's the region encoding. I told them I could circumvent it, but the tools to do it were illegal to use and I wasn't going to take the risk.
My girlfriend wanted me to rip a few songs and whip up a CD of MP3s so she could listen at work. No deal, the CD just wouldn't rip. I asked to look at the packaging, the 'Compact Disc - Digital Audio' logo was missing. I had to tell her that her CD was unrippable, and she'd have to tote the original to work, which she won't do because it cost her $20 and she won't risk having a coworker scratch it.
This stuff DOES affect lots of people, but most folks chalk up the failures to broken hardware, or damaged media, not DRM. The EFF needs to buy some commercial time on prime-time to teach people about this, because the problem is too technical to garner support without real-world stories getting people to call their representing officials.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
i went to Windows update yesterday, and to my complete surprise, the only patch that my box didn't have was the DRm client, i looked it over real good, then realized that if i did that, it'd be nothing short of large amounts of PAIN!
I run 3 2k machines on top of a linux backend, the only reason I run 2k is for software compatibility (I have yet to seea headache free way of getting my All-in-wonder card working in linux, ditto for the GF4 for gaming, not to mention the games themselves).
I will not run XP/2k3/longhorn unless absolutly necessary (read: 2k isn't supported and my new box has some gadget that will not run on 2k, which thanks to 2k and XP being so close together hasn't happened yet. I will probably run 2k til hell freezes over.
linux is looking a whole lot better these days, if it was only good for something other than basic office work (sans headaches), and servers (there is no such thing as a M$ server (M$ server = big honkin 'HACK ME' sign)
Logistical Chaos Officer http://www.slagg.org - LAN Gaming in Sarasota FL,USA
"Microsoft Windows Rights... Management". Not "Microsoft Windows *Users* Rights Management".
This client has been out for quite some time already as a download.
It is clearly separated not beeing a 'required' update on windows update just like it says in the article, but it's also mentioned as a "download" on windows update and not a "update".
According to one recent /. article (terascale storage), systems and database administrators will be increasingly in need as storage increases, and also increasingly automated, to solve that problem. But if you focus on the applications/integration side, or if you can find a neat job at a lab you may ride a wave.. Good luck.
How did THIS ever get "Insightful"? There should be a category for "Self-Rightous" and "Braindead".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The DRM doesn't forbid you from copying. It merely prevents you from using the techniques to do so that you used before.
How did the CC company know the stuff came from you?
I am the inventor of the hilarious refrigerator alarm.
Stood for Royal Mail Ship. Nuff said.
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: ______ ]
BS! It definitely *is* as simple as "don't use it." I won't, and Hollywood can do without my money. It's no skin off my teeth. I have a hard time just renting a few films in a year, and buying more than one or two indie CD's. If push comes to shove, I'll just do without all of it.
Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
Whose rights are we managing here, anyway?
Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
Idiot? That's seems a bit strong... So are you a telemarketer, spammer, mailman or a bulk mailer? Hmm, you're on /. so you must be at least a mailman...
If anyone sends me, or a hyperlink downloads any sort of restricted media, I will treat it like I treat every piece of apple and real media..... With unrelenting use of the delete key.
Closed media is for closed minds.
I'm late, there are nearly 600 messages, I did not read them all, but if you all think this is just about listening to music, you're truly blind.
Once anyone can a) see inside your computer, b) be "contacted by its software" (as we won't call it "phoning home" anymore), and c) can "reach out" and flip bits inside your computer ("but only for our own software, Mr. Customer, sir!")....do you think you'll avoid:
And there will be so much more...that even I cannot see. My dreams, though, of late are all dark and unnerving.
This is about nothing less than control of information, which necessarily brings with it all lesser forms of control - mind control (yes, sigh, that's a "trigger phrase", but it's the best term I could use, I think), control of dissemination of information (like....news?), and control of point-to-point communication (email, chat, VoIP, etc).
--
I wonder if anyone's even reading this?
Ok, I've had about as much as the average person never mind computer nerd can handle with these continuous and shameless attempts from the likes of Microsoft and Symantec to try and convince users to adopt DRM or Anti-Priacy software either as a whole or in parts with software updates.
User MUST be completely informed on what is being installed on there computer with a simple and straight-forward notice telling them exactly what the likely effects of DRM technology and anti-priracy software could and will likely be.
Simply "floating" these technologies out there knowing full well most "average" computer users are likely to install this package not knowing what EXACTLY it does or more importantly could do is COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE and once again shows how the software and IT big guns will eventually prey on users as DRM cash cows.
Oh BTW... I thought MS was not allowed to require one software program or package in order to use another (IE + Windows) should then the same apply with an EXTENSION to the Windows Operating System (DRM). Hmmm... Guess the DOJ is too busy chasing those phantom terrorist spooks lurking just past the shadows... really and if you give us $60 billion and unlimited access to every American's personal information we'll eventually be able to prove it too.
And I was worried about that whole Satan and End of Days thing... geezzzshh!(:-
Well, it *is* required to set rights regarding who can open Office 2003 documents
No, you can limit who can open a file with perfectly reasonable ordinary encryption methods. DRM is about granting someone access to open a file AND trying to simultaneously restrict what they can do with it.
DRM is about trying to tie in restrictions that have nothing to do with rights.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Could someone please explain to me where that post turned into flamebait?
I hope you are just trolling and not actually proposing that these two situations are in any way similar.
this is IRM not DRM. The difference being that IRM is a rights management deal for Office documents, targeted at corporate environments.
LOL!
The only "difference" is that it is "targeted at corporate environments". That does not change the fact that it is still DRM.
DRM is an attempt to give authorized people access to files while simultaneously trying to restrict what they can do with it. DRM is DRM no matter what it is used on and no matter who is pushing it.
If you want to protect a file from unauthorized people you can do that with perfectly reasonable and ordinary encryption. If they wanted to do something like that they could simply embed PGP into office.
Encryption is a good thing and results in a better and more functional product. DRM is very different, it tries to force the computers of AUTHORIZED PEOPLE to become crippled and dysfunctional.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
What stupid people do effects everyone? It is far from clear that we will ALWAYS have a choice. All this stuff about Apple is rubbish for a start. They are large company with shareholders to satisfy and they will jump on the DRM bandwagon if the wind starts blowing strongly that way. As for free software, that freedom largely rests on the freedom of the x86 hardware platform. But the manufacturers of that hardware build it to run Windows (since that has the dominant market share) so the will follow where Microsoft leads.
There are other worrying trends as well. Consoles for instance. The way things are going most people won't be using general purpose computers at all. The XBox wasn't a stupid attempt by Microsoft to diversify. It was the only thing they could do to try and stop Sony from stealing the whole home computer market. Unless things change radically within the next decade home computers are going to be largely replace by consoles that do games, web surfing, email etc. and little else. Once that happens the work place will be next. Consoles (probably the same hardware with different firmware) that just have an office suite, e-mail etc. will replace computers in most offices.
Sure there will still be some demand for general purpose computers but without the volume that they are produce in today their price will beyond the means of most individuals. It was only a few years ago that academic computer purchases were dominated by $20,000 workstations from Sun and DEC. That is what the computers of the future will be like. Things are far worse than you realise. Not only will the general purpose computers all be DRMed to the eyeballs but they will be so expensive that they will only be for academia, large companies and the government. Your ONLY choice will be a special purpose device, console or handheld, that will only perform a limited number of tasks, none of which will possibly allow any copyright violation.
The present freedom we enjoy with general purpose computers is a lucky accident. That quote from the head of IBM saying there would only be a market for a few computers in the entire world is idicative of how no one at the top ever thought personal computers were possible and you can be sure that they don't want it this way. Like it or not if the masses can be weaned off general purpose computers onto consoles then we are screwed. It is all the idiots buying computers that makes it cheap for the rest of us. Without them it is only us and the big boys and you can be sure that no one is going to be selling $1,000 general purpose computers to a small hobbyist market and undermining their $20,000 workstation sales to governments and corporations.
umm...it's for managing who can mess around with office documents, sounds similar to user read/write/execute permissions and that sort of thing.
read my blog
musings on politics and technol
Take that, crackhead moderators!
Litigious bastards
> ... it's about the Rights of Bill. Makes much more sense that way.
I really like that. Short, simple and pretty darned accurate. I can't really add anything to that, so I'm quoting it to get it posted with my bonus.
Democrat delenda est
sounds similar to user read/write/execute permissions and that sort of thing.
No, it's quite different. It allows people to read the file while trying to make it impossible for them to do something like copying a sentence and pasting it into an E-mail or printing it. They have specificly advertized it as making it impossible to forward an E-mail.
The purpose is to give pople access to the file while crippling their computer in the process
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Before the concentration camps and other atrocities, Jews (anyone with up to 1/8 jewish descent) had to register with the German Government. It was nothing horrible at the time. Just sign a form a and keep some papers on you. But things started getting worse. There are other examples in history where a series of atrocities were started from simple fairly innocous actions.
It is unfortunate that you are so foolish that you can not derive understanding from a simpler zen like answer, but rather need it to be pounded into your skull.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Right -- so we'll be "virtual slaves . . . taxed for any utterance" because of DRM software on Windows. I'll bet you US$20 that in, say, two decades time, there will exist at least some utterance that will remain untaxed. You willing to take that? Or are you willing to admit that for all your melodrama, it's really really trivializing to compare the holocaust with an optional patch that appears to be the thin edge of the wedge to making you (heaven forfend) pay for the music that you listen to on your computer?
First of all, I don't expect any party to fix any problem we have. *Both* are corrupt, with the same end goal in mind.
Secondly I have been sending both letters and phone calls to voice my voting opinions. Currently that is our only legal option as a single voter.
Thirdly, I'm more then willing to 'take up arms if it becomes necessary'. I am willing, and more then capable to fight for my freedoms. I am also willing to die if needed, in that pursuit. Somehow I imagine, from the impression I get from your self-righteous attitude, you aren't. For you its easier to insult people.
---- Booth was a patriot ----