Slashdot Mirror


Draconian DRM Revealed In Windows 7

TechForensics writes "A few days' testing of Windows 7 has already disclosed some draconian DRM, some of it unrelated to media files. A legitimate copy of Photoshop CS4 stopped functioning after we clobbered a nagging registration screen by replacing a DLL with a hacked version. With regard to media files, the days of capturing an audio program on your PC seem to be over (if the program originated on that PC). The inputs of your sound card are severely degraded in software if the card is also playing an audio program (tested here with Grooveshark). This may be the tip of the iceberg. Being in bed with the RIAA is bad enough, but locking your own files away from you is a tactic so outrageous it may kill the OS for many persons. Many users will not want to experiment with a second sound card or computer just to record from online sources, or boot up under a Linux that supports ntfs-3g just to control their files." Read on for more details of this user's findings.
Re — Photoshop: That Photoshop stopped functioning after we messed with one of its nag DLLs was not so much a surprise, but what was a surprise: Noting that Win7 allows programs like Photoshop to insert themselves stealthily into your firewall exception list. Further, that the OS allows large software vendors to penetrate your machine. Even further, that that permission is responsible for disabling of a program based on a modified DLL. And then finding that the OS even after reboot has locked you out of your own Local Settings folder; has denied you permission to move or delete the modified DLL; and refuses to allow the replacement of the Local Settings folder after it is unlocked with Unlocker to move it to the Desktop for examination (where it also denies you entry to your own folder). Setting permissions to 'allow everyone' was disabled!

Re — media: Under XP you could select 'Stereo Mix' or similar under audio recording inputs and nicely capture any program then playing. No longer.

35 of 1,127 comments (clear)

  1. A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitution by Quebec · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For the sake of civil liberties, culture and sanity and as weird as it may seems I am not joking. Laws are made by the people for the people and some disconnected tenants of some ivory towers need to be reminded of it.

  2. Re:Looking forward to Windows 8 by hannson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You think Windows 8 will have less DRM?

  3. Proof? by TejWC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not that I don't believe this guy, but can we have some screen shots and some evidence before we scream and yell to the rest of the world?

    If indeed Windows 7 does this, I know a lot of people that will get a "rude awakening" from DRM and they will not stand for it.

  4. Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For the sake of civil liberties, culture and sanity and as weird as it may seems I am not joking. Laws are made by the people for the people and some disconnected tenants of some ivory towers need to be reminded of it.

    The Constitution doesn't regulate transactions between private parties. It regulates the powers granted to the Government. If you don't like the DRM in Windows 7/Vista/XP/whatever then vote with your feet and wallet. It's not like there aren't alternatives available.

    You want to amend a document that's only been changed 27 times in ~200 years over computer software? Just think about what you are advocating for a minute.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  5. FUD? False alarm? by bersl2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As much as I want to believe this, I'm not so sure that these effects are intentional.

    First of all, can anyone duplicate them? Secondly, is a binary really the best way to test this? I would think that one would want to interact with whatever APIs control the recording process. In any case, I think that more investigative work needs to be done.

  6. How in the hell did this make the front page? by nobodyman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Honestly, this is one of the worst-written front page stories on I've seen on ./ in quite some time. No citation, no proof, nothing. Not even a fucking link to a story? Please.

    Win7 might very well be Evil Incarnate. But it's not like your gonna convince anyone with 'journalism' that reads along the line of "yeah this one guy I know says that win7 totally sucks".

    1. Re:How in the hell did this make the front page? by idiotwithastick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously, what sort of conclusions does this "article" even make? They say that it is somehow Window's fault that their software stops working because a DLL is replaced, because you know, somehow programs are supposed to run after you change parts of them. Next thing you know, they'll blame Windows for breaking their graphics card after they deleted their graphics driver. As for programs modifying the firewall, that has been implemented since the Windows XP firewall at least. Run an iTunes install and you'll see all the exceptions that Apple puts into the firewall for their own software. Hell, perhaps we should blame Windows for letting the iTunes installer put Bonjour and Apple Updater and QuickTime on your computer as well? Clearly, they are allowing software vendors to put crapware on your machine!

  7. Short on details... by Manip · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This article is seriously short on details.

    So you replaced a DLL and the application stopped working? What DLL? What evidence do you have supporting your theory that it is the OS's fault?

    So you can no longer record application's audio? Are you using the same drivers? On my system the sound card has to specifically support such functionality.

    Windows 7 might contain tons of scary DRM but unfortunately this article contains no real proof of that. In fact it is so vague that is sounds almost like voodoo.

  8. Re:Yes, and no. by RuBLed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, it is more like the utility people locking you, as the owner, out of your own circuit breakers. Or the plumber locking the cabinet under your sink after he installed it.

  9. kdawson is an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. What Photoshop CD4 dll? Does it do this with Vista? Does it do this with XP? Why is this attributed to Windows 7?

    2. What sound card and driver? Does it do this with Vista? Does it do this with XP? Why is this attributed to Windows 7?

    3. What build of Windows 7? Who is the testor? Why is two paragraphs of incomplete information hitting the front page and it's not an "Idle" post?

    kdawson, you are truly an idiot.

  10. Re:oh please by iris-n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not trying to defend microsoft, but maybe it's a form of virus protection? You know, virus modifies dlls, OS detects that the dll is not what was installed, and blocks it. No big deal. Sure, it might check if it was the user who modified it, but I don't know if windows is capable of doing this or if microsoft cares.

    What I'm saying is, until I have a better proof that this is DRM I will not run around crying "evil microsoft".

    That said, I will never install software from them in my pc.

    --
    entropy happens
  11. Facts? by atari2600 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    - No valid article referenced here

    - Posted by kdawson

    - I've known several geeks over a very long time taking the effort to differentiate the words cracking and hacking. This joke of a slashdot posting laughs at me.

    So an idiot used a pirated DLL to get rid of a nagging screen and somehow this means Windows 7 has draconian DRM. Jesus Christ...I meant to say, fucking idiots. Being in bed with RIAA? What sound card? what drivers? what the fuck?

  12. Re:Irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's an Ubuntu for that...

  13. Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mostly agree with your point. The quickest way to kill DRM is not to buy OR pirate anything that supports DRM.

  14. Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut by Duradin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Large, well funded and powerful interest groups.

    Oh, you said elected and not selected. Well obviously the masses elect who they're told to. Can't have one of those crazy third party candidates who aren't all ready bought and paid for get into office.

  15. The audio things is also highly suspect by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From what I've seen, there are very little changes in the audio layer from Vista to Windows 7. Now in Vista, all the audio DRM stuff relates to protected audio path and only matters if you are playing a DRM's file through a player that uses it. It has no effect, whatsoever, on media you produce. I say this as someone who has actually done plenty of audio production on a Vista system.

    Now as for the audio thing it sounds like one or maybe both of two possibilities:

    1) Crappy drivers. Windows 7 is still in the beta stage, and thus so are drivers for it. Some companies are rather fast with drivers for that and they are essentially release quality. Other companies suck at the drivers and thus have poor (or no) drivers out. Check a hardware board and you'll find all kinds of people saying "Where can I get Windows 7 drivers for my soundcard?"

    2) Crappy hardware. Not all soundcards are created equal. You will find professional soundcards on the market that can handle 96 simultaneous inputs, 96 simultaneous outputs all at 24-bit 96kHz without dropping a sample. You'll also find cheap consumer cards that can't even do what they claim on the box. One thing that cheap cards have problems with more often than they should is operating full duplex, meaning outputting sound and inputting it at the same time. Some just plain can't do it, others can do it but have to cut the input or output sample rate, others are just flaky. Just because a soundcard has inputs, doesn't mean it deals with them well, since that is a feature many users don't make use of.

    So I'd want to see this done in a properly controlled setup: It a quality, current, soundcard that is known to have good input and output quality, and known to have no issues doing both at the same time. Also ensure there are beta drives out from the company that don't state any major problems. Put it in a system and try it in Vista and make sure it works. Then Put Windows 7 on that same system, and try it again. If there's a problem, ok well then maybe there is something to this (though I'd still be interested in drivers). If not, and I suspect not, then this guy needs to STFU.

    I get more than a little tired of morons who have a problem on their system and instantly run and blame the OS. No, it is often NOT the OS's fault. I get even more tried of all the FUD surrounding MS and DRM. I heard all this crap about Vista's audio DRM and how it was going to not let you control your own music. Well guess what? It is all 100% bullshit. You can record in Vista, you can mix and master in Vista, you can encode to non-DRM's format, including MS's own Windows Media format (which has no DRM by default, you have to set it up yourself). Vista doesn't at all mind or interfere.

    This really strikes me as more of the same. I mean the guy is clearly a moron. He goes and downloads a crack for CS4, let's not play make believe like that's what he wasn't doing, and it doesn't work. So he blames Windows? What the hell? Then a random rant about audio. Ya, I'm thinking no.

    I can't for sure say he's wrong, I've not yet test Windows 7 my self, but his story has all the markings of BS.

  16. Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut by zippthorne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It especially doesn't make sense as MS's yearly net profits exceed the entire gross revenues of either the recording or movie industries.

    What's with the tail wagging the dog here?

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  17. Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut by Quebec · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As you may notice if you read my comment, it was about the DRMs and not about Windows version X (which I don't really care because I don't use at all). The DRMs are starting to be omnipresent and this is really bad, just try by yourself to copy a scene from a bluray movie to include it in a report, a parody, a backup or any other fair use, you will find that there are obstacles in your way.

    Even if you would settle for a downgrade of the artwork it will be difficult to find something to convert the HDMI ouput signal to something recordable because of HDCP feature of HDMI.

    Content publishers, hardware manufacturers and software publishers are working hands in hands to lock the cultural content in DRMs. To all this insanity you add the american DMCA and patent office to it and you will find that there is an oligopoly protected by the governement which is impeding seriously in your access to culture.

    I'm not an american, I'm not even a constitutional expert in my country but I would think that access to culture should be a civil right and that any civil right should be part of the constitution of every countries.

    Just think of what you are not advocating for a minute.

  18. Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut by Pictish+Prince · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who elects those politicians?

    The oligarchy appoints a set to choose from and mindless idiots pick the prettiest one.

    --
    Only his tendency toward a dazed stupor prevented him from screaming aloud.
  19. No it wouldn't by superbus1929 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The media cartel would still make it more worthwhile to Microsoft - who have their own interests - to do these things than not do them.

    The only thing they will respond to is a mass boycott. And considering this is Windows, which is pretty much locked into most large scale networks as it is, not to mention end users' homes, good luck.

    --
    Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
    1. Re:No it wouldn't by brass1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only thing they will respond to is a mass boycott. And considering this is Windows, which is pretty much locked into most large scale networks as it is, not to mention end users' homes, good luck.

      It seems to have worked with Vista.

      If Microsoft's largest customers (IT departments) reject this version of windows over it's anti-piracy measures just like they rejected last version of windows over it's performance issues, you'll get your wish.

    2. Re:No it wouldn't by Fallen+Seraph · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, most large corporations don't "get XP." They have mass volume licenses. I used to work in IT in the NYC branch of one of the top 5 largest companies in the world. We used an automatic build disc and the volume license. Whether XP wass still being sold in stores or not made absolutely no difference to us. The only thing of significance was ending security update support, but that's been extended several times now.

    3. Re:No it wouldn't by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fact that people will read complete bullshit like the summary and instantly assume it's even half true makes me very, very sad. No, it's not half-true. It's not a tenth-true. Neither were any of the DRM claims about Vista, if you remember those from this site. Face it, when it comes to DRM in Windows, Slashdot posts nothing but unfiltered bullshit.

      Here's the most likely possibility:

      - The 13-year-old retard hacker who modified the .DLL to get rid of the nag screen is a shitty programmer, and his modified .DLL doesn't fucking work.

      - The idiot who submitted this article doesn't know jack about Windows or computers in general:

      For example, the "Local Settings" folder doesn't exist in Vista or Windows 7, it's actually a NTFS junction to the new Users/[Name]/Local folder. Arguably it's a bug that Windows Explorer can't correctly follow junctions, but it's not a conspiracy.

      Oh, and applications have always been able to add exceptions to the firewall, just as they can in any other OS I've ever run. Firewalls are designed to prevent *external* attacks; if you go through the effort of installing an application, obviously you've given it your blessing and that application can modify firewall settings. (If you don't trust an app, *don't install it*! Duh!)

  20. Congrats kdawson I'm officially done with slashdot by pythas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Kdawson always posts complete and utter bullshit, but this really is over the line. I've been reading Slashdot for a long long time, but if this is seriously what makes it on the front page these days, there's really no point in even visiting here anymore.

    It's been real everyone, last one out hit the lights.

  21. Maybe no amendment, but law needs changing by zooblethorpe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A better suggestion would be encouraging people to vote with their wallet and not give Microsoft the business.

    While certainly a commendable course of action, it bears recognizing that a legislative revision is most certainly in order even if not at the level of a constitutional amendment, as it is currently, and rather ridiculously, a federal offense to work around such DRM, even if no copyright violation takes place. So, ostensibly, under the terms of the DMCA, even the act of installing a second sound card to try to get around this obnoxious and unconscionable crippling imposed by Microsoft, which impedes even the copying of a user's self-produced media, would itself comprise "circumvention" and put such a user at odds with the law. This is truly a ridiculous and untenable state of affairs.

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  22. Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The DRMs are starting to be omnipresent and this is really bad

    Says who? Apple and Amazon both offer DRM free music for download.

    Content publishers, hardware manufacturers and software publishers are working hands in hands to lock the cultural content in DRMs

    Again, says who? The only reason DRM is at all successful is because people continue to buy it. Stop buying DRM'ed products and they'll disappear pretty quickly.

    but I would think that access to culture should be a civil right and that any civil right should be part of the constitution of every countries.

    You can access culture. You just can't access some parts of culture because of the intentions of the publisher of that culture. Don't do business with him and he'll stop doing it or go out of business. Problem solved.

    Just think of what you are not advocating for a minute.

    I'm not advocating changing a 200 year old document over a software issue.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  23. Let me see if I get this right. by rabbit994 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You took a beta operating system, installed a cracked program, and then after some stuff went completely screwy, started blame Windows for all of this? I haven't really tested Windows 7 but I seriously doubt it locks you out of Local Settings folder. Adding Exceptions to Firewall has been around since XP and Vista but I believe if you have UAC enabled, it will complain about that. Usability vs Security and Microsoft compromised with UAC if I remember correctly. Besides, hoping your firewall picks up some nasty and prevents it communicating outbound after you have executed is little much.

    Then, you took some Audio recording program which probably hasn't been updated for Windows 7 (and that's possibly cracked since your so willing to crack Photoshop) with beta quality drivers and ended up with some crappy quality audio. Instead of ruling out drivers, operating system compatibility between programs you were using and lack of any form of nasty payload on this cracked software, you have determined that Microsoft is completely in bed with RIAA and Adobe to completely screw everyone over.

    This article doesn't even count as news, it looks like shit you would find on digg and kdawson should have his editor privileges revoked for letting this be cleared for publication. Next article cleared for publication by kdawson: "Black Helicopters seen over Redmond, Washington. Microsoft in bed with CIA and developing brain reader. Get your tinfoil."

  24. This Guy Doesn't Know What He's Talking About by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'll make a list.

    • 1) If a program stops working when I replace a vital program DLL, I don't blame Windows, I blame whoever made the non-functioning DLL. Especially if it's from a different vendor (IE a hacker) than the original.
    • Local Settings has been moved to %APPDATA%\Local. The "Local Settings" folder, like the "Documents and Settings" folder, exists for legacy compatibility purposes. This is not new to 7, this was like this back in VISTA.
    • The volume app has been reworked and much of the previous functionality has been hidden away in dialogs, but it looks like you can still record from "stereo mix"... right click the volume tray icon, click recording devices, select the mic and click properties. Under "Listen" it looks like the "Playback through this device" drop down may allow you access to that functionality.
    • Any app has been able to insert itself into the Windows Firewall exception list since XP. This allows for apps to open their own ports without the user having to fiddle with the firewall. Even as an experienced programmer I occasionally wrestle with networking problems that turn out to be caused by a router or firewall blocking something. Joe Average wouldn't know what to do! Not to mention this is a complaint about the behavior of a third-party app... if you don't like it, don't use it, find something else. Technically once you have an app running it COULD disable your firewall and anti-virus if it wanted. Perhaps MS foresaw that vendors would hack their own entires into Windows Firewall and also provided them an API so they could do it properly instead of risking breaking Firewall.
    • Because of these other points I also seriously doubt audio input is degraded when you're playing audio. I find it more likely the app used sucks (Grooveshark, wtf is that?) or that the mic was picking up audio output from the speakers. The "test" isn't exactly well documented so I'm just going to just go and label it "inconclusive".

    I begin to see why people block kdawson articles.

    Summary: Blaming Microsoft for behavior of third-party code, can't take 5 minutes to figure out where Stereo Mix recording has moved to, and declares that a folder that has been locked since Vista for compatibility reasons newly locked once he did something completely unrelated, without checking to see if it was related. Yup, sounds like fail to me.

  25. Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut by Cjstone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's my analysis of the situation: Microsoft isn't putting these features in at the demand of the RIAA/MPAA. They're putting them in to try to get a leg up on the competition. Media is increasingly becoming digital; music/movie download sites, streaming content, etc. Microsoft realizes this. So they decided to build the most appealing (to the RIAA/MPAA) content distribution platorm. This meant locking everything down at the OS level, so that users "cannot under any circumstances" copy the content. Of course, this isn't going to stop the hard-core pirates, who will always find a way around it. The only way to stop the copying of music and movies is to fully plug the analog hole, which is absolutely impossible without some sort of brain-computer interface that streams the content directly into the viewer's skull.

  26. Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut by bhpaddock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    EVERYTHING. Absolutely EVERYTHING in this article is incorrect.

    * What kind of idiot blames the OS for "disabling a program based on a modified DLL." The OS has no such support, this is the APP either crashing or doing its own integrity check.

    * Lots of apps ask you if you want to add the appropriate firewall rules during their installers. This has nothing to do with Adobe being a "large software vendor" - Stardock's apps do this too. Go read the API documentation on MSDN if you want to know more.

    * The "sound degredation" thing is just unsubstantiated FUD.

    * Microsoft in bed with the RIAA? Since when?

    * Anyone can browse into their own Local Settings folder. Either this is further idiocy, or ::gasp:: someone hit a bug in a beta OS.

    * "Stereo Mix" is a feature of some sound drivers.

    And Slashdot proves again that it doesn't matter if something is true, so long as it makes Microsoft look bad.

    You haven't "found" any DRM in Win7 because there isn't any (other than the same support for DRM'd WMA and WMV files that has existed in Vista and XP).

  27. Re:oh please by Allador · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a working DLL and windows shit-canning the application because it doesn't match what the vendor wants.

    No its not.

    this is about a grossly ignorant user, who (poorly) tried to steal Photoshop, and got tripped up by CS4's much nastier activation and anti-hacking measures.

    And when his 'crack' stopped working (which is a well known phenomenon with CS4), rather than use the opportunity for an education, he started running around crying like a chicken with his head cut off.

    His comments about the 'Local Settings' just exacerbates his ignorance.

    The bottom line here isnt that MS did something nefarious. Its that the poster doesnt understand how W7 works, and therefore thinks its a big conspiracy to stop him from his right to steal photoshop.

  28. Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a difference between "I don't know what this is doing so I cannot do it" and "I know exactly what this is doing and I cannot do it" one is lack of knowledge one is deliberate

    It seems that Microsoft is going further an further down the route of "this is not your machine" ... well it is and formatting the hard-drive and installing something else will prove it ....

    --
    Puteulanus fenestra mortis
  29. Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut by Jurily · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nice delusion, but totally false-to-fact. Maybe back in the day of the Altar or Apple II you could control the entire machine, but today you didn't write the OS, the BIOS, the device firmware, the drivers, the utilities, or the programs. You have no say in the matter.

    Except you do, especially on Gentoo and LFS, where you can even make sure the code you're running is the code they say it is. You're not forced to blindly accept your OS, and that makes it credible. On LFS, you're encouraged to apply your own patches as you see fit.

    DIY distros are fun, try it sometime.

  30. Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it's more likely that that "hacked" dll he used on photoshop was infected with some virus, and THAT is why he can no longer go into his own user folder.

    If your computer starts acting up after you do something, blame yourself, not the computer.

    The guy's an idiot.

    Of course, this post is so far down the comments that very few people are going to see its wisdom...

  31. Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh please! Exactly what DRM are you talking about here? There is nothing in the original "article" that has anything to do with any DRM on Microsoft's part. Adobe's copy protection is mentioned, but how is the inability to crack it somehow Microsoft's fault?

    Photoshop inserts itself into the firewall exceptions list? I agree that this should require a UAC elevation, but it is no different to how the firewall works on XP. It is not a Windows 7 issue, nor is it anything to do with DRM. Neither does not being able to move or delete a DLL that is in use. We had that problem back in the day of Windows 3.0!

    It doesn't surprise me that someone would submit a crazy uninformed rant (especially the Firehose version of it - you have just got to read that version if you like a laugh). It also doesn't surprise me that kdawson would post it.

    What does surprise me is how many people here accept the DRM claim without even thinking about it. Doesn't anyone wonder how Microsoft "allows large software vendors to penetrate your machine" without asking what it is that these large vendors can do that ANYONE with a compiler can't do? Why are people not pointing out that "Local Settings" is now stored as AppData\Local, and is still perfectly visible.

    The XP system that I am using right now doesn't allow me to select 'Stereo Mix', probably because either the motherboard chipset or the drivers do not support it. Why jump to the conclusion that it is Microsoft's fault and not lousy hardware?

    And if you claim that Windows 7 is faster because the DRM is turned off, what can you do in the beta now that you can't currently do in Vista?