Slashdot Mirror
Is Microsoft Using RIAA Legal Tactics?
Nom du Keyboard writes, "CNET reports, 'Microsoft has filed a federal lawsuit against an alleged hacker who broke through its copy protection technology, charging that the mystery developer somehow gained access to its copyrighted source code.' Looks to me like since they can't figure out how else he's doing it, they'll sue on this pretense and go fishing for the actual method through the legal system. They clearly have no proof yet that any theft of source code actually happened. This smacks of the RIAA tactics of sue first, then force you to hand over your hard drive to incriminate yourself. Isn't this something the courts should be putting a stop to at the first motion for dismissal?" Viodentia has denied using any proprietary source code, according to CNET.
Why is it so hard to believe that he read the assembly and figured out how to crack the DRM from that?
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
- Prior to the trial, make sure that the judge realizes that your wife, daughter and grandmother are available for him depending on his age preference.
- Have the only licensed copy of Photoshop in the world installed on your laptop and present at the trial. Ask the defendent for his IP address during questioning and then add it to a BMP screen shot of some file sharing application with "KAZAA" shakily written at the top of the screen. Make sure that you wipe the drool from the judges mouth when you explain to him that this list is dynamic but you're sure the defendent is guilty. Also, throw his IP address on the Berlin Wall, the cover of Chairman Mao's Red Book & Hitler's armband in his 1936 speech just so the judge realizes the pure evil he's dealing with .
- Remind the judge how much you and your industry mean to the American economy. Also remind him who's in charge right now and how important it is that the economy stays in full swing. Carefully explain to him that a successful lawsuit will not help the American economy.
- Bring in Senator Ted Stevens as an expert witness on computers and tubes so the judge can understand how both computers and the internet works.
- Act like the artists (or in Microsoft's case, developers) are the ones being screwed here. They are the ones that this hacker is stealing from and then show pictures of their families living in the cold run down mansions in Redwood. Also show a picture of Lars Ulrich with a measily pile of only 5 million dollars instead of 6.
- Rinse, wash, repeat above card.
- Use legions of lawyers to inundate the individual with accusations about his past and his profession.
- Bottom line: stear clear of the fact that people pay you money for instances of something that's easily instantiated. Try to blur the concept of physical property versus intellectual property and use bad analogies such as grand theft auto or gas station holdups to the case at hand.
- Oh, and stop at nothing to make sure the person is ruined for the rest of their life. Leans on paychecks are a sweel idea as well as restitution through house, car, possessions, etc.
So, as you can see, Microsoft has a ways to go before meeting the RIAA's stringent legal tactics. Don't worry though, I have faith in Microsoft.My work here is dung.
the article doesn't state anywhere, "the ethically superior and generous monopoly, microsoft..."
i support the right to offend.
Microsoft has released two successive patches aimed at disabling the tool. The first worked--but the hacker, known only by the pseudonym "Viodentia," quickly found a way around the update, the company alleges. Now the company says this was because the hacker had apparently gained access to copyrighted source code unavailable to previous generations of would-be crackers.
Tenuous grounds -- Microsoft is in effect claiming nobody could have reverse engineered their code, or cracked it, so fast, therefore they must have cheated by having access to Microsoft's original sources. Sounds like a logical assumption, but it's a bit like claiming a driver went from Point A to Point B, 100 miles apart, in one hour must have been speeding, though there was no witness to the driver actually speeding.
I expect what Microsoft really wants is to find if they have an inside man leaking code. Have to get Viodentia to reveal that by poring over his/her drive, which may yield absolutely nothing and be fairly claimed as harrassment.
"FairUse4WM has been my own creation, and has never involved Microsoft source code," the developer wrote. "I link with Microsoft's static libraries provided with the compiler and various platform SDK (software development kit) files."
Sounds almost as if those at Microsoft pursuing this case do not even know what their own library routines may be capapble of.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Wouldn't this fall under the category of reverse engineering for interoperability? As long as he isn't re-publishing copyrighted code, I don't see what their problem is.
IIRC, The program doesn't even circumvent the DRM, it just waits for WMP to do it, and then reads some of its memory.
...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
What I take from this is the following:
Even WITH the source code microsoft cannot figure out how their code works and issue patches...so how would they be able to tell if some 'hacker' is really hacking their ultra secure corporate network? What do they do when third parties issue unofficial patches for IE? Are they going to start filing lawsuits against the white hats too as they might have figured something out on their own?
I am neither for or against hacking DRM and such, but honestly, assuming somebody hacked their way in and stole source code is a little bit harder to believe than simply figuring out a way around what I'm sure is an elementary DRM code. Poking and testing is easy to do, hacking, finding, downloading, and analysing source code is probably adding a bit more effort to the process than most guys trying to beat DRM are willing to go through.
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. If he just plain figured it out by trying several different things, I'm inclined to believe him.
Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
Can some clue me in on the motive of Viodentia? Do they want donations? Do they have anything to sell? Ads? If they make any profit at all (donations are cool, however), then I will very quickly leave their side.
People don't usually crack things in record time without a motivation.
> Tenuous grounds -- Microsoft is in effect claiming nobody could have reverse engineered their code, or cracked it, so fast, therefore they must have cheated by having access to Microsoft's original sources.
Sounds more like SCO's tactics than the RIAA's...
-- OpenVerse Visual Chat: http://openverse.com
This smacks of the RIAA tactics of sue first, then force you to hand over your hard drive to incriminate yourself.
Wouldn't that violate the 5th amendment?
I'm not trolling about the RIAA violating the constitution, I'm really interested in knowing if the 5th would apply here.
Dismissal is only appropriate where the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. There is no evidentiary burden for a motion to dismiss, and before some discovery, a motion for summary judgment (which seems to be what the author is referring to) is premature. If Microsoft has a good faith belief that what they alledge happened actually happened, then they are entitled to discovery to prove their point, so long as they actually have a cause of action (in this case, they do). If discovery information does not support their claim, then the defendant can have summary judgment. Even if they are using the legal system to "find out how he did it," if someone committed a tort against them, they have a right to figure out exactly what happened.
Don't write about law if you know nothing about law, and don't make assumptions or claims about lawsuits based on second-hand information and bias.
Hate to put any ideas in their heads, but odds are that a lot of hacks/cracks are compiled with visual studio, and on machines with WGA or other identifiable data.
.exe and .dll files don't already have embedded in them a little tag that gives MSFT a clue who compiled it, what time zone, what IP address, what domain, what ISP/routes it uses, maybe even wifi connection history (if it's on the move).
In away I'm simply amazed that
"This smacks of the RIAA tactics of sue first, then force you to hand over your hard drive to incriminate yourself."
This smacks of SCO tactics to me. Accuse first, offer no proof, sue so you can fish for evidence...
Say, didn't Microsoft indirectly fund the SCO fishing expedition? Nuff said...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
the MPAA and RIAA sue Microsoft? Since nobody could intentionally make software this insecure, it's obvious that Microsoft is in league with the pirates.
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
A disassembler.
I mean come on! Really! Read this from TFA:
Microsoft has released two successive patches aimed at disabling the tool. The first worked--but the hacker, known only by the pseudonym "Viodentia," quickly found a way around the update, the company alleges. Now the company says this was because the hacker had apparently gained access to copyrighted source code unavailable to previous generations of would-be crackers.
Um, hello? People have been disassembling code to disable copy protection since the first days of the warez scene. You don't need the source. All the source does is speed things up a bit.
Not that I'd know anything about that. *ahem*
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
so the only one who has any clue how the MS DRM works is some dude out in The Ether who watched bitstreams or something and reverse-engineered a patch for this.
or didn't know aught, but found the section of code or the registry points and routed them to his own routine, which could be as simple as
NOP
NOP
NOP
NEXT
to settle a timing issue.
the judge should get both explainations side by side on his bench and make a summary ruling. I expect it would take about 51 seconds to dismiss with prejudice. meaning MS can't chase this guy/gal/thing/commune any more over the issue.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
...... Can be found here:
o nds-to-microsoft-releases-fairuse4wm-1-3/
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/27/viodentia-resp
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Our congressmen and senators look after the welfare of their constiuancy (sp?), and the courts come to a fair and balanced ruling which takes the best interests of the citizens into account and comes to a verdict which is most just for their citizenry.
It's just that now corporations are the only real citizens-- a situation no different than the late 1700's/early 1800s when only the rich white landowners were considered citizens.
Again, I'll ask --the system works; why are you bitching?
...does that mean I can sue anyone who opens it in a text editor for stealing copyrighted source code?
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
DRM is an arms race that the defender is going to eventually lose. Microsoft realizes this and is using the legal system to try to intimidate their NEXT adversary in the DRM battle. If they can successfully make an example of the person who bypassed their DRM this time, the next person may think twice. And yeah - it stinks.
[Insert pithy quote here]
That's probably the whole point of "shared" source, which is basically a plain old NDA wrapped in a shitload of marketing hype. The bottom line is it makes it easy to go after projects and people who reverse engineer MS' protocols and other problems from MS licensing and/or lack of documentation. The better job these people and teams do, the better show MS can make to the uninformed that their secret sauce was stolen. That sounds a lot better to shareholders than the product was so crappy that it was cracked in short order from the binaries alone.
That's not unprecedented. The Samba team regularly has contact from MS developers asking for help with MS' own junk. In this case they're probably itching to get hold of the guy. First, because he's showing that even MS' patches are junk. Second, because he probably has insight into who to do it correctly and maybe they can entice or force it out of him. Getting hold of him in a court setting would allow MS to set the conditions of "employment".
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Is Microsoft Using RIAA Illegal Tactics...?
FIXME: Add a sig here
I think I agree that they're looking for a leak. Reverse Engineering is against the DMCA and should be enough to nail the guy, but they're persisting anyway.
Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
I don't know, are they?
"I don't know how GuyIDontLike did something, therefore he must have cheated."
Some developpers are extremely slow to realize that things which seem nigh impossible to them are in fact, run-of-the-mill easy for talented hackers, crackers, upper-teir skr1pt k1dd13s, and others. Code obfuscation is not by any means adequate protection.
Neither is sticking anti-debugger crap in your code, for that matter.
We should create a standards-compliant website, which contains links to copyrighted material.
:)
BUT these links use copy protection technology, so that they are never displayed.
Only Microsoft, that bad evil hacker organisation, gives all script-kiddis in the world an easy tool to break through this copy protection technology by just ignoring the RFC-standards!
Let's sue them, and forbid them to provide Internet Explorer!
despite their DRM being yet another monopolistic trap.
It's about DRM being like gun control (don't get me wrong, I HATE guns and private gun ownership):
DRM punishes the honest, and does nothing about people who are going to steal.
Make 'legal' online music consumption easy for the consumer, and they will be happy, and you will make money.
Treat them like criminals, and... well, you'll just be cultivating this behaviour.
Personally this is another great M$ beta test. They can't hope to find the flaws in their DRM design, and Windows Media software, so they get users to do it. If the flaw is not obvious and no one will volunteer the info M$ needs to correct it, they send in the lawyers. Makes me wonder if they will take HP's lead and get some PI to do a black bag job on someone's house. Hey, computers get stolen all the time :)
If they do end up in court, at the very least only third party investigators should have access so as to protect the defendents trade secrets and IP. Afterward, to top it off, M$ should open itself up to verify that it isn't secretly using anything it learned in the trial without paying compensation.
omgwtf? pwned again? j00 h4x0r. l4m3.
On the DRM tool in Windows Media software there's virtually no way to make it fully hack-proof. Any protection that's just software can always be broken by other software. Some attacker was bound to be able to do something like this. This won't be the last time Microsoft has to contend with this type of problem. Or maybe Microsoft put out this code that would be cracked quickly so they could the world at how fast they are at beating back the crackers? Good way to show the entertainment industry how much they care about protecting the industry.
Microsoft are so arrogant.
Even though they have a perfect track record of inability to develop a single truly secure product, they presume this guy must have stolen the source in order to use any of their gaping holes.
Microsoft's own track record on security is this guy's own perfect legal defense.
Hacker just needs to countersue, saying Microsoft could not have issued a patch that undid his DRM-removal without access to his source code. The arguement is the same, and with the time for Vista to ship as evidence that Microsoft cannot turn around updates quickly, source-code or no.
From an article I just started reading: ...when Mozart was a boy he traveled to the Vatican with his father. Since they happened to be there at Easter, they were able to take in a performance of Allegri's Miserere. The Miserere is considered by many to be one of the most beautiful pieces of music ever composed. It is so beautiful, in fact, that at the time the Pope allowed no copies of the score to be made, and it was only performed at Easter, and only at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Only the choir was permitted to see the score, which was otherwise kept under lock and key.
Mozart, being the prodigy he was, heard the piece once and memorized it in its entirety. When he got home he wrote down the score without a single missed note. When Church authorities heard that Mozart had an unauthorized copy of the Miserere they took him to court, accusing him of stealing a copy of the score. The young boy was able to prove that he had not stolen the work only by writing down the piece again, perfectly, from memory in the presence of the court.
Obviously this probably isn't the case here, but isn't this a good example that you should not be allowed to sue somebody for copyright infringement unless you have some proof they obtained what they got thru illegal activity?
Another good reason not to have anything to do with Microsoft.
Did you need another? Don't worry, they'll come up with one for you.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Since Microsoft doesn't wven know the true identity of the person they are suing, we should all stand up and shout (well at least send an email " I am Viodentia".
So, what did I get from this article... There's a new tool available that can strip new Windows Media DRM! Thanks, Microsoft!
:^)
It took a bit of searching but I found the program and mirrored it if anybody's interesting. Please be sparing on my bandwidth.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
*** Viodentia has denied using any proprietary source code, according to CNET. ***
And all Slashdotters will deny ever downloading music illegally...
Any and everyone can deny something. Why should anyone believe someone who's sole purpose was to get around a security/anti-piracy/whatever measure just because they didn't like it.
Again, if you don't like it - don't use it...don't buy it...whatever. It's that fucking simple.
Microsoft can't win the lawsuit. If you knew Microsoft was after your hard drive and they have no idea who you are, you have plenty of time to backup everything and wipe your hard drive(the right way). Just put the backups in a safe place. There you go, no evidence. This is all assuming you WERE guilty. And if you are innocent, and want to really piss off Microsoft, post the source code on the net. :)
that by forcing someone into the courtroom and accusing him of stealing the source code, his probable defense as everyone has pointed out is "I didn't steal the code, I reversed engineered it."
Guess what else is against the law? His/her best defense is an admission of guilt to breaking the system/scheme of protection. It is probably a win win for Microsoft.
And regardless if you are for or against the law(s), it seems as if some law has been broken.
I wouldn't say Microsoft is adopting RIAA tactics because that would be crediting RIAA for inventing the use of the courts to stop something they don't like. Companies have doing that for a long time.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
Microsoft wants to convince its music partners that its DRM is unbeatable. Now that it's been cracked, they're trying to argue that the only way their "unbeatable" DRM could have been cracked would be due to access to the source code.In other words, along with being a fishing expedition, this lawsuit is a PR play to Microsoft's music partners to try to save face over their no-longer-unsinkable DRM scheme.
"Sufferin' succotash."
How someone did something to know they did something wrong. A lawsuit has to be started so they can do things like subpeona the hard drive. Once they can get the hard drive, they can figure out the "how". This is common legal tactics, and frankly is required. WIthout things like a subpeona there is no legal mechanism to force someone to hand over their material (with some exception like the patriot act).
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Now, in my mind, the guy would have to be an ace cracker, a network sleuth, a crackerjack programmer, and completely clairvoyant to know where to even get the copyrighted code from. So, either Microsoft is stupid enough to not know that DRM as a technology simply can not work, or they are stupid enough to have a completely failed corporate security infrastructure and policy in maintaining it. If I were in their shoes I would just claim that I didn't know that DRM could ever be a workable solution, otherwise who would ever want to buy a "secure operating system" from them? (joke, joke)
I tend to think the chances of a job with Microsoft did not improve too much.
One, substitute "buy" for "by" in an obvious place. Two, the singularity will change this. Among other things.
DRM can be easier or harder to crack, but it will always be crackable.
You give them the lock, you give them the key, and you hope that they can never figure out how to use them together.
Why the content industries keep believing that this is a good idea is a true mystery.
Powered by Web3.5 RC 2
Destroying evidence of a crime is also a crime. The best thing to do is to encrypt your data as a matter of course. They can't ask you to decrypt it for them because that would potentially ask you to incriminate yourself. And if they're so wonderful at DRM, let them figure out how to get at it.
Linux and the networking applications that run on it are widely and freely available, but that does not mean it is legal for Linksys to include it in their products without following the licenses on that software.
This is a copyright issue plain and simple. It doesn't matter if the code is widely used and distributed, Microsoft maintains copyright on it. What matters is if he really did include Microsoft's code in FairUse4WM, and whether the route Microsoft has for pursing this in the courts is legitimate.
Hacking and pirating has always taken the path of least resistance. When it can be done in software, that is great, nice and cheap. When it can't, people will pay for the modified hardware to do this.
Back in the day, most copy protection on Commodore 64 floppy disks, was accomplished by intentionally writing a particular error to a particular track and sector on the disk. So if track 12, sector 3, when read, did NOT return an error 52. The progam would know that the disk was copied, and during the copy process, the error was not duplicated, and would not run
People would modify their floppy drive, so out the top, there would be what looked like a hand on a clock that would go from 10 to 5 o'clock. They would write the track numbers on the top of the drive. Then put in a copied game. When the drive stopped moving, because it hit a spot that should of had an error, you could see what track the error should have been on. Then you could pop the original floppy in the drive, and see which sector on that track returned an error and what error it was. Then duplicate that error on the other floppy.
It sounds like hardware hacks will be coming back into style again.
vi +
"Viodentia" can't even try to defend himself against these specious charges if he doesn't reveal himself. If he does reveal himself, or is discovered, Microsoft need merely drop this nonsense and pursue a DMCA claim. Pretty much his only hope is if they can't find him; I hope he hasn't been posting from networks which could identify him.
I must confess that I didn't know US law allows you to sue a "John Doe" where not only their real identity isn't known, but even their *citzenship* (yes, they might not be American) is possibly in doubt.
Also, if Microsoft can't prove that "Viodentia" had access to Microsoft source code (which presumably breaks the law if he/she did - hence the lawsuit), then can Viodentia sue Microsoft for libel? Also, if Microsoft is allowed to sue this John Doe called "Viodentia", then can Viodentia sue Microsoft whilst remaining a John Doe anonymous litigator? If not, then isn't the law very one-sided on this issue where one party is unknown?
Is it just me or is this lawsuit verging on the absolutely ludicrous? Do other countries allow people to sue unknown parties?
Will Doom9 be subpoena'd, I wonder? I'm pretty sure the doom9.org servers are on US soil, and that is where he posts links to his tool. Most forums log IPs. Doom9 Subpoena > IP Address > ISP Subpoena > User Info > Uh oh.
Hope he posts via proxy.
if the security researcher (hacker) just reverse-engineered the program then it's just a violation of the license terms and a court will tell you to find him on your own...
if the security researcher broke into microsofts servers, then it's a much bigger deal and a court might give you 150 agents to hunt the hacker...
this has happened before... Apple did exactly this and they got the 150 agents for a violation of the license agreement... that was the first big case for the electronic frontier foundation
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
I found one claim in there particularly interesting:
I wonder...why is that, exactly? Why is Vista such a massive project?
It's a serious question. I mean, it's not like they're building HAL-9000 here. It's an OS. A microcomputer OS. Which really, as far as I can tell, doesn't do a whole lot more than a bunch of other OSes that are on the market already. What does it do that's so much more complex, fundamentally, than what OS X does? Or Linux? Or any number of other OSes? Why, exactly, is it such a freaking huge project?
If the size estimates I'm reading are accurate, at 50 MLOC, Vista is still smaller than OS X at 80 MLOC (comparisons to Linux are tougher because when someone says "Debian has 160 MLOC," it's not clear if that's just the base system or including all the applications or what). Admittedly, OS X borrowed a lot of code from NeXT, but Microsoft has a lot of code they could steal from previous Windows versions and other projects. If they chose not to, then that was a conscious management decision on their part.
If this guy's characterization of Vista development is true, they have more problems than a slipped schedule; they need to be asking why the damn thing has turned into that much of an epic project in the first place. This is not like IBM building the S/360 here; they're not wandering that far off into uncharted, never-before-attempted territory, based on every description of Vista I've ever seen or heard of. Yet they're making it that much of an effort, either by choice or mismanagement.
Vista, Linux, OS X: it does the same thing. Ultimately, they're both ways of managing the filesystem and the computer's hardware resources, and presenting those resources to programs in a standard manner on one end, and presenting a GUI to the user on the other. Sure, they're different ways of doing things, but they're all solutions to the same basic problem. It's even the same hardware resources and architecture that they're supposed to manage -- it's not as though the premise of each is that different.
Frankly if what that article says is true, Vista might have a second, more dubious distinction: the most wasted effort ever spent on a project since the Russians built that expensive lawn ornament.
If this guy did see the source code and was able to reverse engineer it, Microsoft ought to offer him a job. Apparently, they need the help.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
You need help!
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
So, by filing this suit, Microsoft admits that someone stole the source code. If that's the case, how can they ever guarantee that the same thief(s) didn't also plant code in their repository as well?
In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
Did you win the case?
I'm fairly certain it means you're a masochist. :)
My computer belongs to me, and I have the right to read anything that gets written to its RAM
I wish that were still true. Under the DMCA, and beginning with lots of previous bad laws that included non-circumvention clauses, you can't make a blanket statement like that. You could easily be "circumventing" someone's DRM, and that's illegal, except under some exceptional circumstances (like for research, interoperability, etc.).
We would have been a lot better off if we had not started making a lot of crappy laws specific to technology, and just let the old common law ideas of property see us through; if I own the computer, I should be able to do anything I want to it -- a sort of informational Castle Doctrine. If your electromagnatic waves end up on my property, I should be able to monitor them and do whatever I like with the resulting electrical charges coming off the antenna.
Similarly, most "computer crimes" could be adequately covered by traditional causes of action both in tort or criminal law. If I hack into your computer, that's trespass to chattels; if I steal or delete your data, it's larceny; botnetting it could be unlawful conversion. It's just old crimes being perpetrated in slightly different ways -- there's no 'new crime' being committed.
One of the fundamental errors of modern lawmaking over the last few decades is the assumption that computers 'change everything,' and require all sorts of odd new laws. They do not. In fact, had we just taken a step back in the 1980s and considered what was going on, and let the judges work it out within the framework of existing law, we'd probably be in less of a pickle now than we are. Once the floodgates were open for new "technology laws," they haven't stopped. Now, with each Congress, the situation gets worse and worse, and closer to one of negative informational liberty ("what can I do with my computer that's not illegal?").
Of course, leaving things alone would have required that we had a government that was more concerned about making good laws than in appeasing the telecommunications, cable TV, and content monopolies. Fat chance, really.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Possible answer: Vista has to generally remain bug-for-bug compatible with every piece of software written for the overall Microsoft platform since MS-DOS 2.0. Apple and Linus both are willing to break developer's applications if the loss of backwards compatibility is worth the gain in speed/size/abstraction/whatever.
It might also be that Microsoft decided in 2000 that the Longhorn project was going to be the biggest engineering project in human history, and damned if it wasn't going to be proven wrong. When you are working on a project that is the biggest/most expensive/most ambitious of its kind, that in itself is a license to spend even more time/money/people, particularly in a corporate environment.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
..is that interoperability and bugfixes are unlikely (sufficiently improbable enough for a civil court to see it as "impossible"), if your customers don't have access to the source code.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I want to cause these companies hardship for their arrogant and greedy actions. I will enjoy their product without paying them. They can keep trying to catch me.
I haven't bought a CD since 2004. I haven't bought a DVD since 2005.
Blar.
": Vista has to generally remain bug-for-bug compatible with every piece of software written for the overall Microsoft platform since MS-DOS 2.0."
Why? When I go do download some software from MS either it's only available for XP/2000 or it offers different downloads for 98, NT, XP, XP SP2, NT 3.5+, 2000, 2003 etc.
Clearly every version of windows is slightly incompatible with other versions. Even service packs break backwards compatibility requiring separate downloads for XP and XP SP2.
I think vista will not be fully backwards compatible with any other MS operating system. Some things will work but I would expect everything to be either completely or partially borked.
evil is as evil does
... does it run on Linux?
No, really, if someone makes such a tool it can be defended being for interoperability purposes, can't he?
That is protected by DMCA? At least I heard so...
Well that's hardly surprising, since most of the stuff you're going to be downloading off Microsoft is going to be things like TweakUI, patches, drivers, etc. Of *course* stuff that meddles with under-the-hood OS features is going to require OS-specific versions. You'd hardly expect the XP SP2 to install on Windows 98, for example.
It doesn't apply in general, however. Most software just has one version, and that runs on basically any remotely modern version of Windows. Some may have separate versions for DOS and NT-based Windows which, given they're fundamentally complete different OSes, is hardly unreasonable.
Clearly every version of windows is slightly incompatible with other versions. Even service packs break backwards compatibility requiring separate downloads for XP and XP SP2.
I don't think I've ever seen separate downloads for XP vs XP+SP2 without exceptional circumstances. It's certainly not anything that could be implied to be "common".
Service packs rarely break software, and when they do it's usually with a very good reason (eg: apps using undocumented APIs).
I think vista will not be fully backwards compatible with any other MS operating system. Some things will work but I would expect everything to be either completely or partially borked.
Based on history, I would expect the vast majority of common-use software to work transparently out of the box, largely due to massive efforts on Microsoft's part to make Vista "bug compatible" with previous versions of Windows.
they dropped the case after finding nothing. i got stuck with $11,000 lawyer fees. joy.
MABASPLOOM!
SCOX made a similar claim against IBM...
Limitations of Linux Before IBM's Involvement
82. Linux started as a hobby project of a 19-year old student. Linux has evolved through bits and pieces of various contributions by numerous software developers using single processor computers. Virtually none of these software developers and hobbyists had access to enterprise-scale equipment and testing facilities for Linux development. Without access to such equipment, facilities, sophisticated methods, concepts and coordinated know-how, it would be difficult or impossible for the Linux development community to create a grade of Linux adequate for enterprise use.
83. As long as the Linux development process remained uncoordinated and random, it posed little or no threat to SCO, or to other UNIX vendors, for at least two major reasons: (a) Linux quality was inadequate since it was not developed and tested in coordination for enterprise use and (b) enterprise customer acceptance was non-existent because Linux was viewed by enterprise customers as a "fringe" software product.
84. Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car. This re-design is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (1) a high degree of design coordination, (2) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (3) access to UNIX code, methods and concepts; (4) UNIX architectural experience; and (5) a very significant financial investment.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
see, now my history, and people I've helped with MS, has been the opposite. The compatibility is not there. I'm bewildered by people's claim of 'Windows is backwards compatible'; New versions won't run old software (sometimes you can jump through hoops and get it limping...) And I have never had a file on linux I couldn't read with later version. I have with Microsoft. (Ever heard of people have problems sharing files between different versions of Office? yes, it happens in linux too though you can just open the file and take the info out. Not so with MS :)
Admittedly this is a extremely small sample of the computing population. Is it exclusive?
Are you retarded? Citizens need guns to protect themselves from badguys AND their government. Police can only get there after the incident--they can't protect you; they are not bodyguards. The government doesn't want you to have guns so you won't be able to overthrow it when it becomes too corupt.
Go read up on the founding fathers, maybe you'll learn something.
I am having bald eagle for dinner tonight.
> You give them the lock, you give them the key, and you hope that
> they can never figure out how to use them together.
IANADE (I Am Not A DRM Expert), but...
A more accurate analogy would be:
(1) You give them something in a box. The box is the DRM mechanism.
(2) The box is secured with a lock.
(3) You give them a key so that they can use what's inside.
Step (3) is where the problem starts.
The DRMer has to do one of the following.
a) the lock has to be openable with multiple keys. (Otherwise people would duplicate the key)
b) Make different locks for each boxed product. (Production problems?)
c) Make the box really difficult to open. Use hard material, make the lid heavy... (But who would use the product then?)
(4) They use the product.
The real flaw in the reasoning is that the DRMer thinks that they can use the product only after using the key.
DRM-cracking is more like using a totally different mechanism for using it. Think of it as viewing what's inside an opaque box with X-rays or something!
If necessity is the mother, laziness is the father of invention.
http://oozone.blogspot.com/
"Most software just has one version, and that runs on basically any remotely modern version of Windows. "
.NET 1.1 to 2.0 took over a month for one project alone.
Nonsense. At best software requires win98 or better. Most software I have seen requires XPSP2 or better. Like I said even MS software has different versions for different windows.
"Based on history, I would expect the vast majority of common-use software to work transparently out of the box,"
In that case we are living in a different universe. Where I work every version of windows disrupts our software some way or another. SP2 was especially painful. Migration from
evil is as evil does
Uh, yeah, my point exactly. See that "remotely modern" part ? >8 year old PCs don't really fall into that category.
Most software I have seen requires XPSP2 or better. Like I said even MS software has different versions for different windows.
For example ?
In that case we are living in a different universe. Where I work every version of windows disrupts our software some way or another.
In-house or third party software ?
SP2 was especially painful.
The list of software SP2 broke wasn't particularly big, relatively speaking. The list of software it broke that wasn't already broken by virtue of being badly written, vanishingly small.
But it only takes one crack somewhere in the world to make this whole DRM thing a waste of time. Once the protection is gone, it's gone.
No sig today...
The MD5 has of that file doesn't match the one given by Viodentia in the doom9 forums.
The file here: http://jamesholden.net/fairuse4m-download/ matches though.
Like tinyurl, but one letter less! http://qurl.co.uk/
Can you please mention the source? I read a couple of biographies of Mozart and neither of them mentioned that episode. Either the biographers missed something, or the article is wrong.
Too bad if it's wrong, it's a pretty story.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
Consider the following links:
"By the time it was released, Microsoft Windows NT 3.0 consisted of 5.6 million lines of code spread across 40,000 source files. A complete build took as many as 19 hours on several machines, but the NT development team still managed to build every day (Zachary, 1994)." -- Best Practices
'There are no other software projects like this," Lucovsky said, "but the one thing that's remained constant [over the years] is how long it takes to build [Windows]. No matter which generation of the product, it takes 12 hours to compile and link the system." Even with the increase in processing horsepower over the years, Windows has grown to match, and the development process has become far more sophisticated, so that Microsoft does more code analysis as part of the daily build. "The CPUs in the build lab are pegged constantly for 12 hours," he said. "We've adapted the process since Windows 2000. Now, we decompose the source [code] tree into independent source trees, and use a new build environment. It's a multi-machine environment that lets us turn the crank faster. But because of all the new code analysis, it still takes 12 hours."' -- Windows 2003 Server, The Road to Gold
Now, take what that says into consideration. Effectively, Windows is one giant source tree. Even though they're able to decompress the source tree into a few sub-trees, you've got one giant source tree. That's a horribly bad thing. There's two main reasons for this.
One, by having everything in the same tree, programmers have a tendency to create all sorts of deep dependency issues in attempts to "speed up" the system. It's these sort of problems that push people against monolithic designs, as those "speed up"s tend also create all sorts of virtually untrackable bugs. It's one major reason that Xorg was split up into modular parts.
Two, by having everything in the same tree, it becomes incredibly difficult to make modifications and improvements in the design. This is partially due to the fact that compile times have a tendency to be dragged out as excessive linking has to be accomplished each compile. And it's partially due to the fact that monoliths are incredibly difficult to adequate comprehend. This latter part means that a person searching to make an addition ends up spending possibly hours trying to figure out just where the changes should be made. Those unwilling to devote the time to do the "right" thing end up just shoving a solution in as a hack and forcing it to run even when the run location is bad. And as we all know, hacks have a tendency to not be fixed. With Microsoft's anal-retentive backwards-compatability standard, this can lead to having to *maintain* such hacks because they become a standard part of the API for people.
Now, you might ask why Microsoft doesn't just divide up this large project into a collection of smaller projects. There's probably five main reasons for this. The first I've already touched on, such would almost certain break compatability. This comes down to the fact that when a hack is included, it almost always resides on the wrong side of what should be a clean break between two different interfaces. The result, then, is that the hack would require a stub across the break, and even with that in place, the timing change (which could involve a memory swap now that the main chunk of actual cod
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Sounds more like SCO tactics.
http://outcampaign.org/
"Uh, yeah, my point exactly. See that "remotely modern" part ? >8 year old PCs don't really fall into that category."
Were you the one that claimed that windows vista had to keep compatiblity for everything between dos 2.0 and windows xp? If so then you were lying.
"For example ?"
IE for one.
"In-house or third party software ?"
Both.
"The list of software SP2 broke wasn't particularly big, relatively speaking."
Even if it broke one application that proves that it's not 100% bug for bug compatible. So once again you have been proven wrong.
"The list of software it broke that wasn't already broken by virtue of being badly written, vanishingly small."
Even if just one application broke that proves that it wasn't 100% bug for bug compatible and you have been proven wrong.
So you admit that SP2 was not bug for bug compatible. That's a service pack update to the same version of the operating system.
evil is as evil does
No, but that poster was correct - massive amounts of effort are put in on Microsoft's part to retain as much backwards-compatibility (including bug-compatibility). That doesn't mean everything works, it means most things work.
However, you're changing the subject. Versions of Windows earlier than Win98 don't even come close to be "recent".
IE for one.
Indeed. Stunning than a shared OS component would have different versions for different OS revisions. I can't imagine any other platform doing that.
Both.
If it's in-house then it's your developers faults. Since you've yet to even come up with some third-party examples - despite supposedly being quite typical - it's hard to take anything you say seriously.
Even if it broke one application that proves that it's not 100% bug for bug compatible. So once again you have been proven wrong.
No-one said it was 100% bug compatible.
Even if just one application broke that proves that it wasn't 100% bug for bug compatible and you have been proven wrong.
No-one said it was 100% bug compatible.
So you admit that SP2 was not bug for bug compatible. That's a service pack update to the same version of the operating system.
No-one said it was 100% bug compatible.
See title. ;^)
I opened the file that I had and it didn't seem to contain any spyware or viruses. No idea why it's different from the other one though.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Scanned with HouseCall.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
A simple reason: they have to rewrite or check a lot of code because the old code base is crap, unlike linux's or OS/X's.
hmmm... dumb...
"No-one said it was 100% bug compatible."
Read the thread. One of the astro turfers said that. They said that the reason vista was the largest software development in himan history was because MS had to keep compatibility for everything from dos 2.0 to XP. That was a lie.
evil is as evil does
Presumably you are referring to this post.
You are wrong.
You your claim is that vista is GENERALLY bug for bug compatible with MS-DOS 2.0 right?
So I am wrong because Vista is indeed GENERALLY bug for bug compatible with MS-DOS 2.0. Is that your assertion?
Is this one of those things where it's all going to depend on what definition of GENERALLY means? Kind of like how Bush redefines torture and then claims we don't torture people? I bet it will!. What is your definition of GENERALLY such that vista is GENERALLY BUG FOR BUG COMPATIBLE WITH IT?
I am dying to know.
evil is as evil does
I didn't write the post you are referring to (although I agree with its sentiments).
So I am wrong because Vista is indeed GENERALLY bug for bug compatible with MS-DOS 2.0. Is that your assertion?
No, you are wrong because your whole flamefest hinges on the assertion that someone claimed Vista was "100% bug for bug compatible", when no-one (except you) said anything of the sort.
Is this one of those things where it's all going to depend on what definition of GENERALLY means?
Yes.
Kind of like how Bush redefines torture and then claims we don't torture people? I bet it will!.
Since I'm not American, your pitiful attempts at political trolling are even more of a waste of time than they would otherwise be.
What is your definition of GENERALLY such that vista is GENERALLY BUG FOR BUG COMPATIBLE WITH IT?
This will do.
I am still waiting for you to prove me wrong. All you have to do is to prove that vista is generally bug for bug compatible with MS DOS 2.0.
You up to it?
evil is as evil does