Slashdot Mirror
Professor Michael Geist on Vista's Fine Print
Russell McOrmond writes "With Microsoft's Vista set to hit stores tomorrow, Michael Geist's weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) looks at the legal and technical fine print behind the operating system upgrade. The article notes that in the name of shielding consumers from computer viruses and protecting copyright owners from potential infringement, Vista seemingly wrestles control of the "user experience" from the user. If you are a Canadian and think that the owner of computers should be in control of what they own, rather than some third party (whether virus authors or the manufacturer/maker), then please sign our Petition to protect Information Technology property rights."
.... are former Windows users running to the Apple Store to buy a Mac.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Isn't the most effective way to "protest" it just not buy, to explain to your friends and workplaces why they shouldn't buy it, and most particularly, to aggressively pursue a refund for any bundled versions that you're forced to buy with hardware?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
How about you just don't buy it?
Global warming is a cube.
There is still a lot of debate on whether EULA's and click through agreements are completely binding. I won't get into all of the arguments on both sides, but I believe that companies are afraid to really go after anyone for breaking the asnine portions of these agreements because a court might rule that these documents are not binding contracts. They are handy for threatening people in certain situations, with cease and desist letters, and for making corporate users wary about potential law suits, thus restricting their usage and options. Of course, a court could hold that they are completely binding, and then the software companies would be free to attack an breach. So each side seems to be in an uneasy truce.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
I wonder if they included the blue-screen-of-death feature that I've enjoyed for such a long time.
Am I the only one who is getting tired of reading all kinds of "Microsoft DRM is evil!" posts, and then seeing a post the very next day talking about how awesome Apple is? One company is buckling to industry pressure and including DRM, the other has a fricking Trusted Platform Module in every new computer it makes. The double standard is infuriating.
Thankyou. I regain a bit of faith in the world when mass media says stuff like this. What a pity it's in Canada. (No offense to Canadians, but it's the US where change needs to happen). But ... yeah I am sick of reading narrow-minded articles praising Vista. This article, while short, tells a much fuller story. Cheers!
Wow, this Windows Defender(TM) seems like a piece of work. It can delete any piece of software it wants. firefox.exe, for example. (Come on, with all the security holes, it's practically spyware!)
TPM modules aren't inherently bad. It's how they are used that makes the difference. If the owner of the computer is in charge of the module, they are a powerful tool. If someone else is, then it's a problem.
Is it just me, or is there a complete lack of any kind of buzz around Vista?
A search on Google News (UK) brings up loads of articles with negative titles "Buying Vista? Get a guarantee", "Windows Vista: Where Is The Wow?", "Windows Vista: the best reason to buy a Mac?", "Windows Vista disappoints, so get a Mac". And that's just in the first half of the results.
It really is quite amazing for a product that Microsoft has spend billions and many years to develop.
Of course the sad thing is that, because of its strangle hold on the market, it will still make billions and will be able to declare the launch a success.
And here I thought that Vista would be a technical security risk. Heh, little did I know that MS would do something idiotic like this to go with the lot. I'd be strongly dissuading ANYONE who was my client to go do this "upgrade" because of this alone (never mind the potential and REAL security risks that the OS seems to have...).
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
And so far MS's marketing is sucking really bad from what I've seen.
Tried to open Office 2007 and got a message about a license key and if I wanted to enter it. I clicked "No," and the entire screen went black and wouldn't come back up.
I shook my head and laughed as I walked away.
something happened to my message...
I meant to explain that I was browsing at Best Buy and tried out their main display computer running Vista. It was set up at the end of an aisle with signs and speakers proclaiming what a great step up Vista was.
I guess I need a marketing department of my own to vet my posts before I click submit.
"you may not work around any technical limitations in the software."
That's absolutely stunning. I wonder exactly how broadly that could be interpreted?
If I buy any kind of third-party utility... antivirus software, backup software, a defragmenter... isn't that "working around" technical limiations in the software Microsoft provides? Isn't Firefox arguable a "workaround" for technical limitations in Internet Explorer?
It's about time to stop calling it a "personal computer" and start calling it a "Microsoft corporate computer."
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Am I the only one who is getting tired of reading all kinds of "Microsoft DRM is evil!" posts, and then seeing a post the very next day talking about how awesome Apple is? One company is buckling to industry pressure and including DRM, the other has a fricking Trusted Platform Module in every new computer it makes. The double standard is infuriating.
So if I buy a mac, how does the DRM affect me? Do I have to worry about my computer becoming unusable if I change hardware? Do I have to worry about re-registering? Do I have to worry about registering in the first place? The answers are, of course, no, no, and no. So is there a chance Apple will delete software off of my computer without my permission as MS's built in security will? No. So what, exactly, is the issue? There is a chip with an encryption key on it in the box? Okay, so why should I care? I'm a pragmatist. If my files were being DRM'd so I could not move to something else or if Apple was restricting me in any way, maybe I'd care. Apple does put DRM on their music files, they sell, but I generally don't buy from them. I did buy a few songs once that I could not find elsewhere, but I legally stripped the DRM off with a freeware program and backed them up as a regular audio CD with no DRM. What's the problem?
I use Windows and OS X and Linux on the desktop. Currently I favor OS X because it gives me the best feature set for general tasks. If Apple starts implementing DRM in such a way as to inconvenience me, I'll migrate to something else. I'm not going to do so, however, unless the DRM does inconvenience me. I'm not being shortsighted either. Any use that prevents me from being able to move platforms would probably tip the balance away from Apple, as I value portability.
The only real restriction I've seen Apple implement with encryption is locking their software to their hardware (any Apple hardware not a specific machine). Since Apple only licenses their software to run on their platform the only people this inconveniences are people who plan to use the software but break the license, and that doesn't leave a lot of room for complaint. Would I prefer it if OS X would run on any hardware? Sure, it would be a great feature. The problem is Apple's main product would directly compete with an abusive monopoly, and that means it would die and we would not get to use it anymore. The traditional strategy for dealing with such a monopoly is to build a separate vertical chain of supply, which Apple has done. Breaking that chain before MS is stopped from their criminal monopoly abuse is not a real option for Apple, so I don't blame them at all for only licensing their OS for their hardware.
I mean look at their generous FairPlay licensing program!
Yes, look at it. Its dominance is forcing the record labels to consider abandoning DRM altogether (see prior Slashdot article). And it's from a company who said early on that they weren't a fan of DRM and has refused to license it.
Let's put it this way - less DRM means more iPods sold. The iTMS is just infrastructure to sell iPods, not a massive source of revenue. And they could make good money licensing FairPlay.
Maybe I'm wearing rose-colored glasses, but this seems to be the way things are playing out.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
...that the petition is the PITR petition?
I wonder how much user freedom Pitr would want people to have once he takes over Google...
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
The petition is to the Canadian parliament, and is on behalf of all owners of Information Technology -- not just those who choose any specific brand of hardware or software.
Our existing petitions have already had an important effect, letting politicians know that there are more constituencies in this issue than the incumbent industry associations. Our new petition tries to move away from the myths that DRM is about "content control" when in fact it is about "hardware control". This "hardware control" impacts your usage of hardware you own, regardless of whether you are using "premium content" or not.
This is also not a Microsoft and/or Apple issue, as these bad laws impact all users of technology whether or not they are ever a customer of Microsoft or Apple.
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/
"THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon Parliament to prohibit the application of a technical protection measure to a device without the informed consent of the owner of the device, and to prohibit the conditioning of the supply of content to the purchase or use of a device which has a technical measure applied to it. We further call upon Parliament to recognise the right of citizens to personally control their own communication devices, and to choose software based on their own personal criteria."
Digital Copyright Canada forum
If you are curious what I would say, just ask.
Speaking to a group of copyright holders about this issue, Stewart Baker, Department of Homeland Security's assistant secretary for policy, said, "It's very important to remember that it's your intellectual property -- it's not your computer. And in the pursuit of protection of intellectual property, it's important not to defeat or undermine the security measures that people need to adopt in these days."
Nothing in this petition diminishes the legitimate rights of copyright holders. What it does is recognize the age-old saying, which is "Your right to swing your cane ends at my nose". IE: A copyright holders right to protect their copyright ends at my property rights.
Digital Copyright Canada forum
Umm... the whole point of TPM modules is to deny the owner full control. And even if that was not the case, that's the agenda and the intent behind this hardware. If you ignore such factors, then nothing--no artifact whatsoever--is inherently bad or good and your use of the distinction becomes vaccuous.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
Toms Hardware http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista / just published extensive Vista Enterprise benchmarks, comparing them to XP Pro.
The result:
At best, the computer won't run any slower.
At worst, it will run software abysmally slow or not at all. OpenGL support seems nonexistant, judging from the horrendous drop in performance in UT2004 (>30% drop) and the rendering of 3D/CAD/CAE software unusable (80-90% drops in performance).
This is idiotic on Microsoft's part. Now businesses will be even more opposed to upgrading to Vista, since either they're going to have to stop using their engineering/graphics software (at least until vendors work on their Vista support) or they're going to have to split their computer infrastructure and support both XP and Vista, while seeing, at beast, negligible gains under Vista.
Businesses are not going to be sold on the promise of Aero glass, especially not when Vista's recommended system requirements are so high, relative to those for XP (I have a P2 450 with 384MB of RAM running XP Home passably, it certainly won't be able to run Vista).
Those are the options. And they all suck.
This is an opportunity for somebody. Probably somebody in China.
I loaded it on a twin dual core with 4 gig of ram.
It booted slower than 2k pro
It would not allow me to install sybase (vista said it was a virus)
I could not run Office 2000 on it. I would just crash if it opened at all
I was unable to load my custom written backup software, it did not have a valid certificate
( i wrote the software )
I unloaded vista and put 2k back on it
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
The fact that people are still making a big thing over the Vista DRM limitations is amazing. Yes MS are spineless and evil for adding what the movie industry wants, but if you want to ever be able to play this content on your Apple, Apple are going to have to add the exact same restrictions. Guess what, if you don't play this DRM content on a Vista PC, which you can't play on an Apple currently anyway, then there is no difference whatsoever. Vista is only evil in it's extra functionality, so if you don't like it, don't use it. I've been using a freely provided copy of Vista for a few weeks now, and I'm happier than I've ever been on a Windows OS (and I'm generally a linux fanboy), which must say something. As soon as this new crappy DRM starts being used in high def content, the situation will be the same on Vista, OS X, even linux if you want to play it, and assuming you don't go for a "cracked" approach.
Really? I'm not sure I agree with that. I guess you are saying that Microsoft would bury them but that might be harder than you think giving the potential for anti-trust lawsuits.
Are you kidding? MS has too much money for the laws to apply to them. Notice how they've been forced to un-bundle IE, WMP, XPS, .doc, etc. since they are obvious violations of antitrust law? Notice how they've been forced to open up their secret protocols that tie to their server offerings? The courts have done nothing to stop MS and they outright killed several OS's (see BeOS). I have no doubt Apple might win a lawsuit about 8 years after they completely lost their OS and hardware market, and they'd get a big settlement, and MS would have mode more than that because of the abuse, in that time.
Apple makes their money off of hardware.
In a non-monopolized market, Apple could not afford bundling their hardware and software. They don't have a monopoly. The only way they get away with it now is because all the other options are Windows. If MS's monopoly was broken up and consumers could pick from a marketplace where monopolistic lock-in was broken, they could choose from hardware vendors and choose WindowsA, WindowsB, several Linux distros, and Apple who bundled. Apple would lose quickly. They would stop bundling out of necessity, and the necessity for being bundled would be gone.
The second reason is that by controlling the hardware Apple can provide an OS that only targets a small subset of x86 hardware. This means that it is much easier to create an OS which is stable and consistent versus the Windows situation where a single bad driver can cause system instability.
For Windows the onus of creating drivers is on hardware vendors. In any case, this is by no means insurmountable. More robust driver architectures could and would appear to provide more stability.
The problem for me is that Apple, in controlling their hardware, has created very strict market segments for their computers. They don't want iMac sales to inch in on their Mac Pros, so they limit the RAM slots and any form of upgrading. I need the expansion of a Mac Pro but it's out of my price range and to be honest dual Xeons is over kill for me. Steve won't make a nice mid range expandable desktop Mac any more.
What would you have them do? If they enter the OS market by itself they will die. It is simple market economics, even without abuse. There are too many lock-ins to Windows. Apple would kill a huge chink of their hardware market, lose their reputation for stability, and incur huge costs writing drivers, that MS does not. Having a better OS is not enough when you are against a monopoly because they can create artificial barriers to entry. To risk the entire company on that gamble would be criminal, literally. As a result you are unlikely to ever have as large a choice of hardware for OS X.
Seriously, I think the key is simply to restore the market. MS can't abuse monopoly power they don't have. Split them into at least two companies, both with full rights to the patents and codebase. Forbid them from collusion and let them battle it out for customers. Everyone wins as prices drop, innovation speeds up, and lock-ins evaporate since they drive customers away. Without a monoculture we will be able to choose among many more, better OS's in a healthy competition with one another and all of which have a need for compatibility and portability.
I blame our current situation on MS's criminal behavior, but also upon the corrupt courts that have not stopped that behavior. If our legal system was not for sale, cheap, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Content is encoded so that it is only interoperable with a subset of devices, but that is the extent to which DRM relates to content. All the controversy relating to DRM relates to the locking down of devices by people other than the owners of the devices, and the treatment of these owners as a threat that third parties (manufacturers of the devices) need to protect against.
The first part of our petition is a clear protection of property rights, and is accomplished in two ways. The first is to not have anti-circumvention legislation, which is the status-quo in Canada. There is no obligation for Canada to ratify the 1996 WIPO treaties, and it is largely foreign special interests (Major labels and studios, USTR, USPTO) that are calling for Canada to ratify these treaties.
This first part also suggests simple labelling requirements, in support of a free market, such that consumers will be able to tell before they purchase content whether it will be compatible with their hardware. The doesn't say that companies can't encrypt content to deliberately break interoperability (a "feature" of all DRM), but that if content is encrypted that it will be lawful for a Canadian to decode the content with the hardware/software of their choosing, and that the deliberately non-interoperable content require labelling. This is consistent with existing Canadian law, and the laws of many other countries, and is not radical at all.
The second part talking about "conditioning of the supply" is part of anti-trust or competition law in many countries, and is often called "tied selling". This is also not radical at all. Again, content can be encoded, but citizens must be free to convert the files to a format compatible with the devices that they own.
There is no conflict in having Canadians being able to legally device shift their content regardless of any technology used to deliberately reduce interoperability, but US citizens not being able to. There are many laws where Canada and the USA is different. This is no different than the fact that in Canada copyright is only life+50 rather than life+70, meaning that Canadians have access to public domain works a full 20 years before citizens in the USA. This is no different than how Canada has crown copyright (The Canadian government is a massive copyright holder), but the US government more fairly releases government works directly into the public domain. US citizens also benefit from a comprehensive Fair Use regime, while Canadians only have a much more limited Fair Dealings regime.
The last sentence should be an obvious recognition of the property rights of owners of computing hardware. While I would prefer to have all citizens of all countries have their basic property rights protected, there is no harm for Canadians to have their rights protected even if the rights of people in other countries are not.
This isn't a case of excessive regulation, given what we are proposing isn't new regulation at all but the application of existing regulations, and objecting to radically new regulations against our rights.
Digital Copyright Canada forum
According to Microsoft's EULA: "You may not work around any technical limitations in the software"
Just wait until we hear, "I'm sorry sir but installing Linux on your machine to get around the technical limitations of Windows is now against the EULA".