Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Privacy Software Your Rights Online

Microsoft Offers A DRM Patch 644

Transcendent writes "Microsoft Windows Update is offering a download for their 1.0 version of the 'Microsoft Windows Rights Management client,' if you care to download it. Seems that you need Win98 SE and up (or at least that's the minimum 'supported'). Details are here. Although it's not required or a 'critical' update, this just paves the road for all of Microsoft's software to require DRM technology on your computer. Quote from the details page: 'Installing this client allows RM-aware applications to work with Windows Rights Management Services (RMS) to provide licenses for publishing and consuming RM-protected information.' This, dubbed 'Activation', entails that 'your computer will be automatically connected via the Internet ... in order to create and save on your computer a system component that is associated with your hardware.' Hmmm... me no like ..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Offers A DRM Patch

Comments Filter:
  • by caluml ( 551744 ) <slashdot AT spam ... OT calum DOT org> on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:00PM (#7020703) Homepage
    The thin end of the wedge.
    Remember where you were when the world started to roll over, and let MS tickle its belly.

    But Grandad, didn't you try to fight them?
    No little one, it just seemed harmless at the time...
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:10PM (#7020773)
      But then the shining becon of freedom shone through on a land far away. The champoin of freedom in a world which had become a matrix of digital prisons. The ones that stood up to it all without flinching.

      The Chinese...
    • This is the thin end of the wedge.

      C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\DRM was the thin end of the wedge. This is the hint to jump ship and get a stable operating system before you go down with all the other Windows users.
  • by leonbrooks ( 8043 ) <SentByMSBlast-No ... .brooks.fdns.net> on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:01PM (#7020709) Homepage
    Getcha free chains here! Bondage! Suffering! Leather gear, only the hottest from Microsoft! Trade-ins on unwanted liberty a specialty, test-whip today's amazing offer!
  • by -=SteelRat=- ( 34541 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:02PM (#7020718)
    thnx MS makes my job soo much easier

    Steel
    • by SkArcher ( 676201 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:27PM (#7020869) Journal
      I don't know why the parent was modded funny, it is perfectly accurate. This news will be just a little more incentive to move to non-MS software.

      After all, MS has its fingers in a lot of pies, and there are going to be some people who will not want MS to have any information on them for perfectly legal reasons.

      Now, how best to convince the punters of it...
  • Something tells me GNU/RMS is not going to like Microsoft's choice of acronyms.
    • by archen ( 447353 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:06PM (#7020750)
      Something tells me GNU/RMS is not going to like Microsoft's choice of acronyms.

      Is that why he's even adding it to his name now?
    • by roystgnr ( 4015 ) <royNO@SPAMstogners.org> on Sunday September 21, 2003 @10:13PM (#7021447) Homepage
      Right now Richard Stallman is the first link in a Google search for RMS [stallman.org], that's going to take time and effort for Microsoft to change, and any astroturfing attempt on Microsoft's part would probably be met by a grassroots effort to keep Stallman at the top.

      RMS himself, on the other hand, doesn't need to make much effort at all to take advantage of the situation. It would be easy for him to tack a short rant about DRM, TCPA, "Trusted computing", and all the other current buzzwords onto the top of the political "action items" on his home page, so that even more mainstream people looking for information on MS/RMS are directed to GNU/RMS instead. It would also be easy to make sure that his essay The Right to Read [gnu.org], which looked like a paranoid rant in 1997 and looks like a prescient description of DRM policies today, gets read by many of the MS/RMS websearchers who hit his site "by mistake".

      I hope this isn't a coincidence; I hope some Microsoft exec intentionally chose "RMS" as a snide little poke at Stallman - that would make it sweeter when it backfired.
  • Jeez (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So who cares if the OS supports DRM? It's up to the media companies to actually use it. Let them try to sell their crippled audio files. No one will buy it.
    • Re:Jeez (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jonman_d ( 465049 ) <nemilar.optonline@net> on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:07PM (#7020754) Homepage Journal
      You're kidding, right?

      Crippled CDs. Region-encoding.

      Your every-day consumer doesn't give a crap about DRM, crippled software/audio, or anything else, for that matter. Your average consumer doesn't even know about crippled CDs.

      They'll get away with this, because most comsumers are dolts.
      • Remember Divx? (Not the codec, the DVD format that eventually got dropped by Circuit City)

        Crippled CDs are being complained about en masse, and are now the focus of potential Congressional action.

        DRM is very much at the upper right end of the envelope. You know, where the pioneers - and the cancel stamp - go.
      • Re:Jeez (Score:4, Insightful)

        by WCMI92 ( 592436 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:37PM (#7020944) Homepage
        "Your every-day consumer doesn't give a crap about DRM, crippled software/audio, or anything else, for that matter. Your average consumer doesn't even know about crippled CDs."

        They do and will when their CD won't play in the player they want it to. Or when it won't rip to MP3 on their computer.
      • Re:Jeez (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @09:24PM (#7021193)
        Nope. Things like region coding have been acceptable because Joe Sixpack doesn't deal with discs from a different region very often. However, the first time Joe puts a CD that he bought for his car into his computer and finds that it won't play, he's going to be irritated. And when he takes it back to where he bought it, complains that it doesn't work, exchanges it for another copy and finds that it still doesn't work, he's going to be really pissed. Rights Management (indeed, virtually all security systems) impose a certain loss of convenience upon the user. American consumers are notoriously intolerant of anything that gets in the way of their doing what they want to do, when they want to do it. It's why every attempt to impose "rights management" to date has been met with skepticism if not outright hostility. Very little computer software is copy-protected anymore ... why is that? Because consumers didn't accept it! The RIAA forced SCM (serial-copy-management) upon Digital Audio Tape and killed off that promising media. Consumers don't like being told they can't do something, because their (correct) perception is that if they bought it, they own it and should be able to use the product in any way they please.

        Now, admittedly computer software is a competitive industry, and if one vendor tries to protect his offering, a competitor can gain an immediate marketing advantage by not protecting his. The RIAA and MPAA have sought to eliminate that avenue by simply eliminating competition. They're getting away with it for the time being because the only disadvantages the consumer perceives are high prices and poor quality. When the media companies start trying to dictate to individual consumers, in any meaningful way, how and where their products can be used, expect the backlash to be immediate.

        The other problem the music companies will encounter with DRM is that consumers have had a taste of what it means to have control over their music. Whatever you want to say about Napster, peer-to-peer, indeed file-sharing in general the truth is that a lot of people have been exposed to it, and liked it. It will damned hard to get those sixty or seventy million worms back in the can and accepting DRM.
        • Re:Jeez (Score:3, Insightful)

          American consumers are notoriously intolerant of anything that gets in the way

          Yeah, that's why the spam problem was eliminated a few months after it first reared its head.

      • Oh really? I was at a school last week and several teachers back from sabbatical all over the world had brought back DVDs to show the students examples of foreign filmmaking and culture. I had to break them the bad news that the reason their DVDs won't play here isn't broken DVD players, it's the region encoding. I told them I could circumvent it, but the tools to do it were illegal to use and I wasn't going to take the risk.

        My girlfriend wanted me to rip a few songs and whip up a CD of MP3s so she could l
    • Re: Clever. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by E_elven ( 600520 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:49PM (#7021016) Journal
      A 'rights management' patch? My friend (let's call him Joe), who is not entirely untechnical (sophomore CompEng), actually pondered the following when peering over my shoulder: "Probably should upgrade. About time they did something about those damn viruses." He was under the impression that the 'rights' referred to controls he could set. A good name, indeed.
  • heh (Score:2, Funny)

    by B3ryllium ( 571199 )
    I, for one, welcome our new DRM overlords. And, as a trusted TV personality, I want to remind them that I can be useful in rounding up workers for their underground intellectual property lawsuit caves.
  • RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HermesHuang ( 606596 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:02PM (#7020726)
    I wonder if Microsoft got any money from the RIAA to do this? I imagine if done properly something like this could actually put a bit damper on illegal music.
    • Re:RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TwistedGreen ( 80055 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:43PM (#7020981)
      Oh yes, because I'm sure that all the loyal music pirates will dutifully convert all of their existing mp3s into a DRM-enabled music format.

      I don't see how they're going to get their customers to start using this... I mean, it's not giving them any added value.
    • Re:RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)

      by squarefish ( 561836 ) *
      and possibly legal music- who decides what on your computer is legally yours? leave this decision up to others?

      I think not
  • How long? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Just Another Perl Ha ( 7483 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:05PM (#7020739) Journal
    How long before they make a patch like this mandatory? (well, as mandatory as they can make it.... like, bundling it in with a critical security update). Hmmm.... maybe that was their plan all along while they kept releasing all of their hole ridden tripe...
  • Good timing! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rolux ( 99682 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:05PM (#7020740) Homepage
    With everyone and their uncle updating their Windows these days to be safe from the latest viruses and worms, this is definitely a very good moment to push a DRM patch...
    • Re:Good timing! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:11PM (#7020775) Journal
      With everyone and their uncle updating their Windows these days to be safe from the latest viruses and worms, this is definitely a very good moment to push a DRM patch...

      And will it be included in the auto-update I and others have come to rely on?

      And will it be sandwiched in with 7 other patches, so I don't even see it?

      And will it be an un-doable patch (some are) or not (some are not)?
  • Wow.... *sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:05PM (#7020743)
    Thanks for providing a link to an MS download on a pro-Linux site... no seriously, nothing like baiting on a slow news day. Were we expecting MS to sidestep digital rghts-management? I think not.

    We'll ignore the fact that on the same day, Gates donated $168 million to fund malaria research [bbc.co.uk], but funnily enough, I doubt we'll see that reported here.
    • Re:Wow.... *sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bersl2 ( 689221 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:57PM (#7021056) Journal
      OK, so he gives money away. So did Rockefeller. So do most of the monopolists.

      How he makes his money and what he does with his money are completely different items.

      He, driven by greed, is abhorent in how he makes his money; he is commendable (unless it's just for tax reasons) in what he does with it.

      Personally, I value the former reason over the latter, as it strikes too close to home. You are free to feel otherwise.

      BTW, Rockefeller always felt that it was his divine mission to make money at all costs, so that he could give it back. I wonder what drives Billy Boy...
  • by jgaynor ( 205453 ) <jonNO@SPAMgaynor.org> on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:06PM (#7020745) Homepage
    Media Player 9 has had DRM options (defaulted ?) during the clickthrough installation since its release. I think more people will miss that then will install an unescessary windowsupdate patch . . .
  • by codepunk ( 167897 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:06PM (#7020747)
    Cool MS now please put DRM into all of your software. When people cannot pirate your software easily I can sell even more linux.
  • Office 2003 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:06PM (#7020751)
    This is probably the rights management system included in office 2003 which lets you sign and limit future use of your word docs. This is what end users of your protected documents will have to install to read them. In this case, the 'rights' that are managed are the ones YOU grant. No proplemo with that.
    • Re:Office 2003 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hpa ( 7948 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:32PM (#7020916) Homepage
      Bullshit.

      This means that it is impossible to build a non-MS piece of software that can read .doc files that your clients will invariably send.

      In other words, Microsoft is using DRM to enforce their monopoly "by name." No need to keep switching incompatible formats, it will be either impossible or illegal (DMCA) to construct a Word clone.

      BIG problem, methinks...
      • Re:Office 2003 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Schnapple ( 262314 ) <tomkidd@gmaiOPENBSDl.com minus bsd> on Sunday September 21, 2003 @11:35PM (#7021868) Homepage
        This means that it is impossible to build a non-MS piece of software that can read .doc files that your clients will invariably send.
        Have you even messed with Office 2003? Or read up on it? It can save to a multitude of file formats - old versions of Word, an XML document, and the Office 2003 format, the only one for which IRM (Information Rights Management) is an option. I've made a document in Word 2003, saved it to the XML format, then popped it open with XMLSPY. Sure, like every other Microsoft paradigm it's seemingly needlessly complicated, but it's not impossible.

        Also - something people gloss over - the IRM in Office 2003 is dependent on Windows Server 2003. You have to connect to a WS2K3 machine to use it. The beta version doesn't have this in place yet, so it uses Passport for the time being, but it's not as simple as Zip file passwords where the encrypting is self contained - you have to connect to a configured Windows Server in order to use it. It's hardly simple enough for the minimum wage secratary to accidentally password protect a document and forget what password she used. It's more like the secratary forgetting her Exchange password - the local sysadmin can help.

  • No Stopping It (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WebMasterP ( 642061 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:07PM (#7020753) Homepage
    It's been out for a few days. I haven't installed it.

    You just know that they're going to make you install it somehow... Be it selling a product a lot of people use (Office) and saying it can't be installed without the DRM software, etc.
  • by rock_climbing_guy ( 630276 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:07PM (#7020755) Journal
    Everyone at the Office (TM) complains about having to use the cubicles next to the Windows (TM) where the mid-day Sun (TM) can be unbearable. I hope that this patch can help us respect each other's rights about sitting next to the Windows (TM)
  • by RumbaFlex ( 465472 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:07PM (#7020757) Homepage
    Windows 1984 and up is what it was supposed to say...
  • by RonnyJ ( 651856 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:09PM (#7020765)
    What applications at the moment would 'benefit' from this patch being installed, being "RM-aware" ?
  • Supports Win98? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lseltzer ( 311306 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:10PM (#7020771)
    Interesting that it supports Win98SE, since Microsoft itself doesn't support that OS anymore [eweek.com].
  • by bigberk ( 547360 ) <bigberk@users.pc9.org> on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:11PM (#7020776)
    We can all help spread awarenes sof what's going. I suggest emailing your friends and getting this simple message across:
    "Digital Rights Management" offers the end user, or consumer no real advantage. They will NOT see more functionality by installing D/RM; in fact they will see
    less functionality. There is nothing 'broken' with their computer.
    In fact, the scary part might be... not only is their computer not broken, but PCs today might be much more functional than those of 10 years in the future.
    • "Digital Rights Management" offers the end user, or consumer no real advantage. They will NOT see more functionality by installing D/RM; in fact they will see less functionality. There is nothing 'broken' with their computer.

      I dont understand attitudes like these. I know its microsoft, and we hate microsoft. But we love Apple's iTunes $.99 a song deal, and most of us intellies are probably yearning for such a service for windows/linux. well guess what - that requires DRM. Would such a service somehow lower functionality?? I see people in /. begging for a legal and legit music distribution one second and then cursing D/RM the next... you cant have it both ways. this isnt a bad thing.
      • by bigberk ( 547360 ) <bigberk@users.pc9.org> on Sunday September 21, 2003 @10:21PM (#7021489)
        But we love Apple's iTunes $.99 a song deal, and most of us intellies are probably yearning for such a service for windows/linux. well guess what - that requires DRM

        I disagree. Services that offer you high quality music downloads DO NOT require DRM -- that's just what we're being lead to believe by the commercial music industry lobby. They are making it law that these things require DRM; this is why I'm really resenting this new shift.

        They will keep lobbying government and spreading heir advertising, and eventually people will believe that yes they need DRM in order to "properly" view videos, listen to music, and read documents.

        However all of us know that right now we do not require any sort of digital 'rights' management in order to enjoy any of these forms of media. I still firmly believe that there is nothing illegal about making casual copies of media.
      • by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @11:36PM (#7021874)


        I know its microsoft, and we hate microsoft.


        And surely Microsoft has done nothing to earn animosity and distrust. It must be more of that jealosy of success we keep hearing about.


        But we love Apple's iTunes $.99 a song deal, and most of us intellies are probably yearning for such a service for windows/linux. well guess what - that requires DRM. Would such a service somehow lower functionality??


        Exactly why does this service require DRM? How would a lack of DRM lower functionality? If anything, iTunes has the least DRM restrictive format of all the offerings. Another thing it does right is allow the customer some ownership over the digital product they are purchasing. This all leads to numerous loopholes to circumventing what little DRM exists.

        Yet the service is the most successful of its kind. Odd considering how much more DRM "functionality" consumers could get with other, and even longer established, services.


        I see people in /. begging for a legal and legit music distribution one second and then cursing D/RM the next... you cant have it both ways.


        Look at the history of online music service. The first service able to deliver a large library of inexpensive tracks on demand with decent quality and no restrictions will eclipse anything else in the industry. Granted, the likes of the RIAA will resist this business model. And so they'll continue to create a market for the likes of Kazaa.
  • Good!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by moehoward ( 668736 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:14PM (#7020796)

    I, for one, welcome our new, um, overlordish overlords.

    Good has been winning over for evil for too long. I'm glad that we will begin to see the balance restored.
  • by shawnmchorse ( 442605 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:16PM (#7020806) Homepage
    I think they may also be embedding this in service packs, in addition to the standalone download, so you may easily install it without even knowing. I know for a fact that I saw this DRM component listed under Windows Update on a Windows 2000 box with SP3, but after it was updated to SP4 that component suddenly wasn't listed anymore. Hmmm....
    • I have Win2K SP4 installed, and I still see this in Windows Update:

      Recommended Update for Windows Rights Management client 1.0
      Download size: 3.6 MB
      The Windows Rights Management (RM) client is required for your computer to run applications that provide functionality based on RM technologies. Installing this client allows RM-aware applications to work with Windows Rights Management Services (RMS) to provide licenses for publishing and consuming RM-protected information. After you install this item,

  • by iamdrscience ( 541136 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:17PM (#7020809) Homepage
    Microsoft will be releasing their next major version of Windows under the name "Linus" in the tradition of their new "RMS" digital rights management client.
  • I Trust Microsoft (Score:3, Informative)

    by dduardo ( 592868 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:19PM (#7020829)
    "None of the information collected or generated as part of machine activation is personally identifiable. Microsoft will not retain any information collected during the activation process, except on a temporary basis where necessary to diagnose and resolve a problem with the Windows Rights Management service. Microsoft does not share any of the information collected during the activation process outside Microsoft."
  • Who cares (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spideyct ( 250045 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:20PM (#7020832)
    It's an optional install.

    You say "we'll see how long that lasts".

    Ok, so maybe it becomes mandatory and gets installed on my computer. It will enable me to use rights protected files. If I don't want to use any rights protected files, then I won't.

    Winzip has had a password protection feature for its archives for a long time. Doesn't mean I have to use it. But if someone sent me a password protected zip file, along with the password (giving me permission to extract the files), I'd be happy that my version of Winzip supported passwords. It doesn't mean that my archives that are not password protected can no longer be extracted, or that I must password protect everything.

    Sure, Microsoft could lock down Windows Media Player so that RM is required, etc, but then everyone (that cares) would just stop using WMP. You think they're going to lock down the sound & video API's in the OS so that nobody can make their own media players?
    • Re:Who cares (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TwistedGreen ( 80055 )
      Precisely. Are they going to restrict WMP to playing only DRM-enabled audio files? It's not like it's the only audio playing application available. You can't stop people from using and sharing their existing MP3s, and you can't stop people from making MP3s in the future.

      The only real reason for DRM is to give the RIAA a "safe" framework through which they can release digital songs through the Internet. This way, if you buy a song, you'll need to use WMP or some other DRM-aware audio player. And that p
    • Microsoft? Nah... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by stewby18 ( 594952 )

      You think they're going to lock down the sound & video API's in the OS so that nobody can make their own media players?

      No, of course not. That would be anti-competitive behavior abusing their monopoly status.

      Oh wait...

      But seriously, it's conceivable that they could fold the DRM into the API itself, so that, for example, the API wouldn't function without some token from the DRM component. Now you have to follow the rules to use their API... and of course you can't just spoof the token, becuase eve

  • Patch? (Score:5, Funny)

    by iamdrscience ( 541136 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:21PM (#7020839) Homepage
    I have to admit, when I read the headline "Microsoft Offers a DRM Patch" I was pretty happy because I thought it meant they had issued a patch FOR DRM, in the same way a patch for "remote code execution exploit #502937" helps you avoid remote code execution exploit #502937.
  • by hqm ( 49964 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:31PM (#7020909)
    I would like everyone to take every opportunity to refer to Microsoft's 'trusted' computing as "restricted computing" instead. We need to get this meme going in the mass-market consumer mind. Every place you would ever refer to "trusted" computing, use the phrase "restricted computing" instead. DRM is "restriction management". There are no "rights" here, just restrictions. "RM" should be called "restriction management". If we can get enough steam behind this now, we can turn the debate around to let people really understand what they are dealing with. "Trusted" my ass!
    • Every place you would ever refer to "trusted" computing, use the phrase "restricted computing" instead.

      I like this idea: it's both technically accurate (after all, we currently have unfettered digital rights) and has the ability to make an impression on the general public. Read up on restricted computing [cam.ac.uk] (that page has lots of references), and also read this description [wikipedia.org] to learn about some of the implications of placing ultimate trust in (whose?) hands.

  • by TyrranzzX ( 617713 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @08:56PM (#7021054) Journal
    Lets hope the sharkbite and the missing foot convinces them it's a bad idea.

    DRM isn't a bad system for controlling a client-server network. Don't want your confidential e-mails, documents and data being read by someone else? No problemo.

    Problem comes in when you implement it on home users machines. A home users' machine is by definition a peer; both a client and a server of services on the internet. DRM is meant to turn a machine into a far more client oriented machine rather than a peer oriented machine by giving other people control of the media they give you. Meaning, the RIAA can burn cd's and when you buy a CD you may listen, not copy, backup etc a cd. Yet I somehow think that with Ms's incompetance there'll be a way around this, but that's besides the point I'm trying to make.

    So where will this lead us? First rollout's going to be on corperate amercia's networks not on home users machines; this patch is basically a demo. Home users could care less about this kind of security; most people trust their families and if they don't, then there's a major problem with that family. Sure, people want firewalls and antivirus scanners, sandboxes and spyware hunting applications as far as keeping their machine from exploding, but as far as keeping your school report form your sister well that's just dumb.

    Sure, kids don't want their parents seeing their pr0n collection or vice versa, but there are other tools available both withing winnt and outside to facilitate that kind of control(and even to an extent in win98). Plus there's the added "Teacher, it says "Drm error; you have no rights to open this file", how do I print the paper I made at home?." Although the school I went to had a strict secuity policiy; you get only 1 disk, that disk stays in the computer room, you are not allowed to put any disk in any computer, which later changed quite a bit as I hit highschool but you get the idea; it adds points of failure.

    So what my guess is that they are either going to package it with a future os as an enabled, mostly harmless service that makes it difficult for you, for example, to copy a CD the RIAA doesn't want you copying. Much like how most people who run win2k aren't aware they are loging in under admin, so too will they be unaware they are running a DRM system and knowing MS, they'll leave it at that. There is nothing in Win2k that I am aware of that is forced on the user. WinXP home ed is a different story, but in Win2k you get admin control. Sure, it's not total control like with linux but the computer doesn't do things you don't want it to do; if you don't want it running tcpip you shut down the protocol and it's that simple.

    Ms also knows full well that there are alternatives out there that people can and will use to bypass their security bullshit. Hell, I even have friends who'll pay me to mod chip their dvd player to get rid of the regional encoding. I also know people who play a lot of music on their computers and if all of a sudden they coulnd't they'd come straight to me and ask how to get around it.

    In any case, if home users don't like it they will no doubt goto their geeky friends and ask "I can't copy this cd, what do I do?" and those geeky frineds will hand them a linux cd if that's the only alternative.

    There's, thankfully, been a lot of developement as far as dumbing down linux so the average user can understand and utilise it. Sure, a lot of hardcore linux elitist assholes are going to complain, but when it comes right down to it most people are dumb and lazy. The next step is taking linux from, for example, a gaming engine to an actual game. We've got the engine complete, it's got documentation out the asshole, it's got different mods now we've got to make a coherent distrobution that's standards based that people can understand.

    What do we have to watch out for? Firstly, if Ms gets control over what you can and cannot run, then they are most certainly not going to let you run competing products
  • Get used to it ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by konmaskisin ( 213498 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @09:01PM (#7021078) Journal
    1) this component with never run on Linux or OS/X desktops (let alone other desktops).

    2) in 18 months or a year +50% of new content will require it (MS authoring tools will make it easy)

    3) most CIOs will cave in and view this as a reason to accept MS licensing

    4) more XP and new MS licensing 6 licenses are sold, more content authoring tools from MS are sold, complete and utter locking in of MS on desktop is more likely

    Conclusion: either way, in every way and on all sides Microsoft wins hugely by doing thing

    Or I could be wrong ...
  • by (void*) ( 113680 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @09:09PM (#7021119)
    I recommend people do this. Keep a copy for safekeeping and archive. Then one day, when they've "upgraded" the DRM to something so restrictive that you cannot tolerate it anymore, you can remwind your software to this DRM version.


    Because like it or not, new versions of software will be full of bugs (read exploitable, hackable), while older versions will be more well-crafted (read treacherous).


    All of these is assuming that you do not want to trust MS. Personally, I'm undecided, but for lots of you out there, you have decided. This is the best advice I have for you.

  • by Jacek Poplawski ( 223457 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @09:12PM (#7021132)
    DRM is used in Linux kernel on desktop computers - Direct Rendering Module is needed for open source implementation of hardware accelerated OpenGL.

    RMS is used mostly for marketing - eeryone knows Richard Stallman.

    And finally - RM is upcase of very important Unix command, which allows to remove both applications and copyrighted data.

    Damn Microsoft, must you steal everything? Try to think about your own acronyms. Try to create something instead stealing all the time.
  • by (void*) ( 113680 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @09:15PM (#7021154)
    It might be worth noting what [slashdot.org]
    Linus has said about the DRM issue.


    Zealots on both sides of the DRM debate can bite
    my fleshy ass.

  • by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @09:38PM (#7021268) Homepage Journal
    On one hand, we could potentially see more digital content via DRM. On the other, it's kind of like being able to see movies ONLY if we go to the theaters.

    *Sigh*

    I do have one optimistic hope, though. Wasn't it Princess Leia who said "The more you tighten your grip, the more will slip through your fingers"? Well, I think that applies here. If it's such a pain in the butt to have movies on your PC, then Indie movie makers will have an extra boost. "For $5, you can buy our movie DRM free. We'd rather not treat all our customers like they're thieves."

    In that light, I kind of look forward to it. I think the content industry is selfish enough that it'll blow up in their faces.
  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @10:04PM (#7021407)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by kcbrown ( 7426 ) <slashdot@sysexperts.com> on Sunday September 21, 2003 @10:14PM (#7021453)
    With that one phrase, Microsoft reveals the actual intent of DRM and, more broadly, of recent "intellectual property" legislation: to turn information into a consumable item like food.

    But information isn't a consumable no matter how much corporations might want it to be, nor should it ever be treated as such. To do so is, ultimately, to turn us into mental slaves.

    I swear, if a quick and easy method existed for making someone forget something, its use would be mandated by governments faster than you could say "intellectual property". Pray that day never comes (but, of course, it will, since it's merely a matter of technology).

  • by An Onerous Coward ( 222037 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @10:19PM (#7021482) Homepage
    Microsoft is giving us the opportunity to activate the much-anticipated Windows RM technology on our computers--absolutely free--enabling "certain features of the software," and they've given us their word that they won't collect any personally identifiable information. Isn't that enough for you people?

    Man, if Microsoft started handing out bags of money on the street while nursing sick puppies back to health, you guys still wouldn't trust them.

    Me, I'm going to install it right now. I can't wait to see what sort of new and exciting functionality is added to my com--[PLEASE ENTER A VALID CREDIT CARD NUMBER TO COMPLETE THIS POST]
  • by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @10:22PM (#7021497) Journal
    It's just one more reason I'm becoming completely unmotivated to work in corporate I.T.

    I've been an "I.T. guy" ever since my first job, and frankly, I banked on "PCs and DOS/Windows solutions" as the stuff one needed to keep up with to retain a decent job.

    Somewhere along the way (I think roughly around the time Microsoft started pushing Active Directory integrated with Exchange 2000, but that's far from the ONLY factor), I started becoming disillusioned with the whole thing. I had always tinkered with Linux as a curiousity and fun "alternative OS" to use at home - but couldn't spark any interest in it where I worked.

    I decided to "rock the boat" a little bit, building Linux-based thin clients PCs out of old, depreciated systems being taken out of service, and asking employees to try using them on a "trial" basis. I had few complaints, and got most of the ones I did have ironed out in short order. (Mostly, people whining about needing support for their scroll wheel mice, stuff like that.)

    I think it threatened my co-workers though, who were die-hard "MS only!" people. My boss was "on the fence" about the whole project, basically not wanting to stop me from experimenting - yet uneasy about it disrupting his little "happy family" of I.T. employees.

    Next thing I knew, I was let go. By this time, the job market was quickly drying up, and I spent a long time collecting unemployment checks, and trying to find another, similar job to no avail.

    I finally found work with Apple Mac systems. Wow, what a difference! Problem is, it's a small mom and pop place that's hanging on by a shoestring. My hours got cut back to part-time recently, because he couldn't make ends meet otherwise. It's really disappointing more folks haven't yet discovered the things Apple has done/is doing with OS X.

    But anyway, here in the present, I see the I.T. job market SLOWLY starting to open back up, but when I read the job descriptions, my stomach churns. I don't even want to apply for most of them! It just seems like signing up to administer hundreds (or thosands?) of users on Exchange email while helping develop roll-outs of the latest MS technologies is like signing one's death warrant.

    This DRM garbage is just another nail in the coffin, the way I see it. I can just imagine the fun it'll be explaining to the higher-ups why everyone's locked out of hundreds of important documents because Joe Schmoe encrypted them and then got laid off/fired/took a vacation/whatever. It's already insane enough trying to keep up with all these security fixes (and fixes for broken fixes!), stop the floods of email from woms/virii, and all the other MS headaches.

    Obviously, there are still plenty of I.T. folks out there happy and willing to take on these jobs, risks and all. But maybe all my experience has made me too jaded? I'm about to throw in the towel. I don't have nearly enough "real world experience" using the OS's I see as superior solutions (Solaris, Linux, BSD, etc.) to get a decent paying job supporting/administering them. I spent too much time in the MS camp for that. I think I can handle the Mac OS X support quite well, but nobody's hiring for that. MS's current offerings give me the creeps....
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21, 2003 @10:23PM (#7021502)
    I think that everyone needs to remember that this is what DRM is all about. MS has been walking a thin line between established publishers who demand protection of their or their clients copyrighted works on one hand and the consumer who will use whatever product benefits them the most at the lowest price. I don't think that the DRM battlefield is as clear cut good vs. evil as many seem to believe.
    Imagine if you will a future with two drastically different homes. In home A, there is a home computer running a MS OS that is similar to what we have today (before XP) that allows you to play any of your files on any computer in the house and doesn't have any restrictions on the software it uses and or the hardware you attach to it. This computer is linked to the television, stereo, and who knows what else!
    In home B, there is a home computer running a MS OS that is linked to a remote server with administrative rights over all hardware and software additions and checks that all of the software and media on it is payed for and legitimate. This computer may or may not be hooked up to the home entertainment system due to conflicts that may arise with its playing of digital content over other hardware. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
    Home A is a place where consumers are happy and unfettered and these consumers have stayed with MS products due to their ease of use. However, the content distributers are unhappy with this set up.
    Home B is a place where the consumer is not so happy because .mp3's that play on the computer will not play on the stereo and cannot be copied to a portable player. However digital content providers feel comfortable that no residents of this house are using any content that was not properly paid for.
    This is the thin line...
    Can MS satisfy content distributers with out alienating their consumer base? Without consumers of their products the protections are meaningless. Will consumers change over to another product that is less intrusive and controlling if such protections are put into place? Those content distributers have deep pockets and if they are entirely reliant on MS products to protect theirs MS will surely be in a very powerful and potentially never ending money making enterprise.
    So MS right now is feeling the waters out, playing both sides of the coin to see what will give them the best profit model for the future. If DRM pushes people to a competitor then some incentives to stay loyal will certainly come into play. But what if... what if... MS goes the other way? What if by signing an allegiance with the content distributors MS can ensure that the only way to get content is through them and their products? Maybe... but again if the consumers get too pissed about that then new content distributors might just spring up. So you see, we don't necessarily need a revolution. The fact that we have freedom of choice is a very powerful check.
  • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @10:25PM (#7021513)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Art_Vandelai ( 596101 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @10:29PM (#7021538)
    when the new Itunes for Windows service comes out before Christmas, that this patch will be required if you want to use the media you purchase through the store. Then, when everyone decides "to hell with DRM" and continues to download free songs on P2P, they will be able to convince legislators to shut down Kazaa, Gnutella, etc.
  • by PingXao ( 153057 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @10:52PM (#7021657)
    There are 3 RM downloads at the MS site. The first is the one in the article - the Client piece. There are also a part for the Server and SDKs for CLient and Server. The Server SDK is not available to just anyone. MS has to license you. They do this via a form of their security Certificate Server. The SDK lets 2 users connect for development work, but beyond that you need a license to code for it.

    They mention some of the technologies used: COM+, an Active Directory server, .NET, SOAP, IE 6 and IIS. This all has the feel of an end-to-end "solution" that they will market to the RIAA and MPAA types. It looks like a substantial infrastructure needs to be in place in order to enable Rights Management content, and the consumer^H^H^H^H user will access protected material by going to a specially engineered web site using IE 6. They also mention a "lockbox", whatever that is.

    Your average hobbyist programmer or shareware programmer isn't going to be able to participate in this. Something tells me the licensing fees won't be cheap. The "right" to access protected material obviously come from certificates, and that model of PKI has proved to be troublesome at best. Furthermore, the "rights" being protected by this setup are those that perpetuate the aims of the RIAA, the MPAA and the like.

    They're not about to let anybody get in on this protection racket. The certificates will no doubt be VERY expensive for the content producers so that the barrier to entry is high. They don't want some kid in Hong Kong to encode his music files using this technology and then give them away to others, fully within the confines of this system. This is really bad, because anyone even tinkering around with the technology without a license will automatically become a criminal under the DMA.
  • by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) * <[moc.oohay] [ta] [ionsahmaet]> on Sunday September 21, 2003 @11:00PM (#7021692) Journal
    I've got a new 15" PB on order, and am looking forward to an Open-source based OS. Sure, Apple isn't all flowers and pumpkins, they've got DRM on iTunes - but that was necessary to offer the Store.

    I've got issues with companies that try and 'slip it under the radar' like MS. Perhaps MS should realize that people like me who admin Windows machines, and switch to Mac are going to tell everyone who requests 'Computer Help' to grab a Mac. No viruses. Easy. Powerful. And sexy-hot. :)

    With the advent of the G5 kicking ass and taking names, there is less and less reason to go with insecure, unpredictable, untrustworthy Windows.

  • by greendot ( 104457 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @12:10AM (#7021999)
    I have not downloaded that new patch yet, but for a while now, I have watched many apps checking with M$ to see if they have permission to run. At least I THINK that is what is going on. They always check with crl.microsoft.com instantly after startup. These are just random apps and it looks like the OS is doing the checking, not the apps.

    It started doing this after I downloaded some of those patches for those damn RPC worms. Me thinks they snuck the DRM thing beta in those patches and this is to fix a few items.
  • by jasonditz ( 597385 ) on Monday September 22, 2003 @02:28AM (#7022458) Homepage
    Prediction:

    Windows Rights Management System (RMS) will eventually give way to Windows Everybody Supports Rights management (ESR)
  • Just some FYI's (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MC68040 ( 462186 ) <henric@NOsPAM.digital-bless.com> on Monday September 22, 2003 @08:56AM (#7023603) Homepage
    This client has been out for quite some time already as a download.
    It is clearly separated not beeing a 'required' update on windows update just like it says in the article, but it's also mentioned as a "download" on windows update and not a "update".

fortune: No such file or directory

Working...