Perhaps one reason why "obvious" patents sometimes get granted is simple inability by those deciding which patents to let through to judge whether something is obvious. Chances are, they will not have much advanced knowledge in all the thousands of topics on which patents are made, and considering just how many requests they receive, it would be very difficult to consult an expert, and even more so to find such an expert who had no interest in seeking a patent himself. Besides, people reviewing patent requests may well judge simpy by what seems advanced to them, to save time on detailed investigation.
Okay, I admit that it doesn't always work very well. But my point is that Microsoft has always tried to produce software that is as easy for idiots to operate as possible, while not paying so much attention to things like performance and reliability.
I thought good "computer-human interaction" has always been the main attraction of Microsoft products... so why is it anything new that they should be leaning towards the design side of things?
There's a simple (not necessarily true!) explanation of why "currently-popular consumer-grade operating systems" tend not to be "inherently secure" in those ways - the software companies want to be able to sell security software.
All computers must now automatically run any Windows executable marked with the Windows autoplay standard on a CD, and avoid any changes made by such program being reversed. It is illegal to disable this feature by any means - shift key, Windows Control Panel, using alternative operating systems (unless they are properly run all autoplay programs with the intended result of the program; wine probably isn't good enough), keeping regular system backups which may be restored to remove the software. Microsoft reports that Windows Vista will include a special DRM system which enables CDs to automatically run or install any software without the user knowing. Linux and Mac users will have to wait for someone to write a patch which enables this feature, including complete support for Windows executables, and translation of restrictions to native programs. Also, a new generation of CD drives capable of detecting tape or pen markings on the disc, and rendering the content unreadable, is expected.
I really fail to understand what anyone hopes to achieve by any form of copy protection...
As far as I can tell, the only form of copy protection that can hope to work against any low-level data extraction tool is one that involves partially invalid data or unreadable regions. And even then, you can do a straight 1:1 copy, and whenever it starts having read errors, put a 0 or something in those bytes and skip them. That is easily achieved using a utility like dd. In many cases, you can also read the disc in a virtual PC (e.g. VMware), and save the audio output to a disk file - and then delete the virtual PC in case of malware installed by the CD.
Unless the disc is in a proprietary format which can only be read by a specific player, which has no standard output connections, you can copy anything that you can play, simply by plugging the output of whatever you use to play it into the line-in on your PC. If they somehow prevent that, you can still record anything using a microphone, as long as you can somehow get sound waves out of it.
Also, is it really right to try and stop all copying? I absolutely cannot stand any kind of data being held within a single physical object, especially such a fragile one as a CD. I keep most of my CDs backed up onto two locations, but I steadfastly refuse to play the music on more than one location at a time, or share it with a friend. There can't be very many people in the world who would want to rip the musicians off, and not posess the necessary technical skills to bypass copy protection. The slightest hint of copy protection on a CD in my posession prompts me to try and create a "pure" copy, just because I can't stand my data being defiled by such things.
Certainly, it is stupid to incorporate Windows trojans into the CDs. People trust the music companies; at least, they did. Things like this must really lower people's trust - especially since they try to disuade people from piracy by saying that pirate copies may contain trojans. I will certainly be very reluctant to insert a CD into a Windows computer without the shift key held down in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps one reason why "obvious" patents sometimes get granted is simple inability by those deciding which patents to let through to judge whether something is obvious. Chances are, they will not have much advanced knowledge in all the thousands of topics on which patents are made, and considering just how many requests they receive, it would be very difficult to consult an expert, and even more so to find such an expert who had no interest in seeking a patent himself. Besides, people reviewing patent requests may well judge simpy by what seems advanced to them, to save time on detailed investigation.
Okay, I admit that it doesn't always work very well. But my point is that Microsoft has always tried to produce software that is as easy for idiots to operate as possible, while not paying so much attention to things like performance and reliability.
I thought good "computer-human interaction" has always been the main attraction of Microsoft products... so why is it anything new that they should be leaning towards the design side of things?
How can you patent a naturally occuring virus, anyway?
There's a simple (not necessarily true!) explanation of why "currently-popular consumer-grade operating systems" tend not to be "inherently secure" in those ways - the software companies want to be able to sell security software.
What about the people who have picked up a nasty trojan from the CD, and have various annoying problems with their computers, typical of viruses?
All computers must now automatically run any Windows executable marked with the Windows autoplay standard on a CD, and avoid any changes made by such program being reversed. It is illegal to disable this feature by any means - shift key, Windows Control Panel, using alternative operating systems (unless they are properly run all autoplay programs with the intended result of the program; wine probably isn't good enough), keeping regular system backups which may be restored to remove the software.
Microsoft reports that Windows Vista will include a special DRM system which enables CDs to automatically run or install any software without the user knowing.
Linux and Mac users will have to wait for someone to write a patch which enables this feature, including complete support for Windows executables, and translation of restrictions to native programs.
Also, a new generation of CD drives capable of detecting tape or pen markings on the disc, and rendering the content unreadable, is expected.
I really fail to understand what anyone hopes to achieve by any form of copy protection...
As far as I can tell, the only form of copy protection that can hope to work against any low-level data extraction tool is one that involves partially invalid data or unreadable regions. And even then, you can do a straight 1:1 copy, and whenever it starts having read errors, put a 0 or something in those bytes and skip them. That is easily achieved using a utility like dd. In many cases, you can also read the disc in a virtual PC (e.g. VMware), and save the audio output to a disk file - and then delete the virtual PC in case of malware installed by the CD.
Unless the disc is in a proprietary format which can only be read by a specific player, which has no standard output connections, you can copy anything that you can play, simply by plugging the output of whatever you use to play it into the line-in on your PC. If they somehow prevent that, you can still record anything using a microphone, as long as you can somehow get sound waves out of it.
Also, is it really right to try and stop all copying? I absolutely cannot stand any kind of data being held within a single physical object, especially such a fragile one as a CD. I keep most of my CDs backed up onto two locations, but I steadfastly refuse to play the music on more than one location at a time, or share it with a friend. There can't be very many people in the world who would want to rip the musicians off, and not posess the necessary technical skills to bypass copy protection. The slightest hint of copy protection on a CD in my posession prompts me to try and create a "pure" copy, just because I can't stand my data being defiled by such things.
Certainly, it is stupid to incorporate Windows trojans into the CDs. People trust the music companies; at least, they did. Things like this must really lower people's trust - especially since they try to disuade people from piracy by saying that pirate copies may contain trojans. I will certainly be very reluctant to insert a CD into a Windows computer without the shift key held down in the future.