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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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
...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
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.
Nope. Things like region coding have been acceptable because Joe Sixpack doesn't deal with discs from a different region very often. However, the first time Joe puts a CD that he bought for his car into his computer and finds that it won't play, he's going to be irritated. And when he takes it back to where he bought it, complains that it doesn't work, exchanges it for another copy and finds that it still doesn't work, he's going to be really pissed. Rights Management (indeed, virtually all security systems) impose a certain loss of convenience upon the user. American consumers are notoriously intolerant of anything that gets in the way of their doing what they want to do, when they want to do it. It's why every attempt to impose "rights management" to date has been met with skepticism if not outright hostility. Very little computer software is copy-protected anymore ... why is that? Because consumers didn't accept it! The RIAA forced SCM (serial-copy-management) upon Digital Audio Tape and killed off that promising media. Consumers don't like being told they can't do something, because their (correct) perception is that if they bought it, they own it and should be able to use the product in any way they please.
Now, admittedly computer software is a competitive industry, and if one vendor tries to protect his offering, a competitor can gain an immediate marketing advantage by not protecting his. The RIAA and MPAA have sought to eliminate that avenue by simply eliminating competition. They're getting away with it for the time being because the only disadvantages the consumer perceives are high prices and poor quality. When the media companies start trying to dictate to individual consumers, in any meaningful way, how and where their products can be used, expect the backlash to be immediate.
The other problem the music companies will encounter with DRM is that consumers have had a taste of what it means to have control over their music. Whatever you want to say about Napster, peer-to-peer, indeed file-sharing in general the truth is that a lot of people have been exposed to it, and liked it. It will damned hard to get those sixty or seventy million worms back in the can and accepting DRM.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
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."
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
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.
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....
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.
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....
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.
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.
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
...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!