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 ..."
The thin end of the wedge. (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:The thin end of the wedge. (Score:5, Funny)
The Chinese...
Re:The Chinese... (Score:3)
Re:The thin end of the wedge. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Thanks for the input from the DMCA crowd,... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you're incredibly comfortable with Reich Emergency Protection Act ---- oops, make that the "Patriot" Act ---- it IS the apocalypse, and it's time to wise up and push back.
Good Try, But You Lost (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good Try, But You Lost (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you are saying we can just optionally all switch away from Windows, Office, etc. right now. LOL. Not quite yet, anyway. Not unless you want to pay for the world-wide migration and personally assume the risks.
And then every other company jumps on the DRM bandwagon, because it's already there.
Then not installing your optional DRM makes not optionally giving your social security number quite easy by comparison.
This may not be the particular piece that does it, but this is coming.
This is the company that bugged [computerbytesman.com] Windows Media Player, so that it reports back what you watch, along with your GUID. Oh yeah, it's not personally identifiable. Until you register your product, and it can be cross-referenced, that is. "Oh yeah, uh, we need to check your DVD 'title and chapter information'. And your GUID. Huhuhuh." MS is bad news on privacy.
Re:85% of the country's desktops,... (Score:5, Interesting)
Big deal. Adobe and MS give away e-book readers. AOL gives away access software. Getting people to buy the paid content will be the trick. AOL is losing share. They gained ground as they were pretty much the first national dialup ISP. Now that they have copmetition, free software isn't keeping them from shrinking. Unfortunately paid access stuff has to compete with already in place free stuff. They do not have the only content without free competition. Many early markets were served by AOL only. DRM does not have this headstart in a world of free content. The pay stuff has to advertise heavly to get people to spend the money.
If your company requires DRM or you want to play DRM media (not unlike a DVD, DAT, Sony Mini-Disk) you will need a DRM machine. Due to it's limited capibilities, it should be limited to a single use type function much as a DVD player, or cable TV box is now. For the rest of your computing, use a primary general purpose computer which does not have the serial copy restrictions of DVD, DAT, Sony Mini-Disk, etc. I'll have to use a general use computer to do my editing and creating. This is doubly true if it needs released in an open format.
There will be programming that can only be viewed on the TV in the living room. There will be other programming that can be played on your RIO, in your DVD player, in your car.... As long as there is indi content, the DRM stuff will have harder time entering the market. Don't forget the Circuit City DVD experiment, full priced E-Books at Barns and Noble and of course the tiny press play optical. People don't pay full price for perishable media. They know it will go bad and won't invest in it for the personal library. The last DVD I bought, (Jackie Chan flick at Wal-Mart) I spent less than $6 for it. Selling a DRM protected newspaper article for $2 with an experation and with backup problems will be a very hard sell. Some corporate stuff that is sensitive may have a place, but for general consumption entertainment, it won't fly at high prices.
Hey RIAA, Why can I find Jackie Chan videos for under $6, but no good music for less? Don't call loss of sales due to competetion for the entertainment buck a loss to piracy.
Not how DRM works (Score:3, Informative)
Re:85% of the country's desktops,... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thanks for the input from the DMCA crowd,... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Now including..."
Let's face it; Microsoft is not making money out of people who actually have a handle on what Microsoft are doing to manipulate the market. They are making money by exploiting the stupidity of business managers or by exploiting the ignorance of your grandmother.
Re:Get Over Yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the point is that any newer (media) software written for Windows will eventually tie-in with the RM APIs, so you won't have a choice in the future. It won't be as simple as "don't use it." MS is apparently floating the balloon to see how the users react. Unfortunately, most users lack the forward-thinking ability that supposedly distinguishes them from their simian ancestors (I can't name one person who patched for MS Blaster - until after their PCs were infected) they won't give a hoot until they're being charged $1 every time they listen to an MP3.
You do have a choice (Score:3, Interesting)
It actually is.
I don't use Win XP because I don't like its activation scheme. I chose not to use it.
I don't use Word/Excel/whatever on my Windows 98 computer because I don't want to use it. I chose not to use it.
If a piece of software does require RM API then I will decide if I want to use it or not.
>It won't be as simple as "don't use it."
Re:You do have a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
However, we've seen many instances of MS rolling an add-on into a service pack and then requiring that the service pack be installed for any future updates. It's then possible to enable the DRM package to restrict the legitimate use of non-protected content and/or software because the end-user won't have any other choice. MS will be holding all the cards. But I think that this will be their undoing.
If an unwitting user was able to use unprotected content both with and without the patch, then can't after MS sends the kill-code to the DRM package, most people will simply say that their computer is broken. They won't know that the DRM software is to blame unless someone tells them. And if a user's computer is "broken" due to some patch that was installed for them by MS, you can bet that those people will start looking for alternatives. Add all of that to the bad publicity MS will get about being "Big Brother", and more and more users will start to think of alternatives to MS software. (Ok, they've already started getting that reputation on their own with the Product Activation snafu, but it certainly doesn't help their situation.)
The first likely route an affected customer will go is to buy a Mac, assuming that there's $1500 or more to spend in the family budget. Another option may or may not be Linux. It very much depends on how much it has progressed in terms of instant usability (can the family make the transition with little- to no difficulty?), and whether or not money is an issue. But I bet that Apple might step in at some point and start offering it's own OS to upset owners of "broken" PCs as an alternative.
That is, of course, assuming that they even want to release it for the ix86 chipset to begin with. My fingers are crossed.
Re:Get Over Yourself (Score:3, Insightful)
It's all about the monopolies. Suppose one company decided to sell this DRM stuff. It would never catch on; it doesn't add any value. Nobody would install it. Now, suppose one music company wanted DRM. They'd sell their music with DRM, and they'd instantly lose to others who sold it unencumbered.
Unfortunately, there's a monopoly in both the
Re:Get Over Yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you worried about? If you don't want to support the RIAA then don't. If you don't want to support MS then don't. Buy indie. Buy a Mac or Linux. There will ALWAYS be someone to offer an alternative to the flavor of the day, and you have a choice.
The people who buy the disposable crap that the RIAA peddles probably won't see the effects of DRM like a more advanced user will. I know this is a very large brush I am using here, but I will go out on a limb and say that 99% of the people who buy Britney Spears or The Ataris albums use their computers for e-mail, ICQ, and writing their resume to get a job at The Gap. You could give them a patch entitled "MS Will Spy On You Patch" and these people would still download it because a computer guy told them it was required.
The people who know better will not use DRM, plain and simple. And before you go into a "but when MS rules the world and all hardware has to comply to their specs" argument, there is simply too much money in big business and education/research for the entire hardware industry to shift this way. Virginia Tech just proved that admirably with their G5 flotilla, to pick a recent development from the haystack.
It is good that you are concerned, but to go so far as to say that we are all screwed is just being dramatic because you will always have a choice.
Re:apple (Score:3, Interesting)
It's even worse, when bringing this up on
Apple Music Store is nice because it makes the music industry look silly. But it is bad bacause you can't play the son
Re:Get Over Yourself (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the golden opportunity for Apple and for Linux to get some more market share, should the price of DRM Windows shoot through the roof. Perhaps we should be encouraging this trend?
Personally, if it were economically viable and if I had the time to spend on re-educating myself I would be off the Windows bandwagon ASAP, as I have wasted too much of my life reins
It's about Fair Use (Score:4, Informative)
Even if you don't care about your own, are you so shameless as to shout down those who do?
Here's a brief explanation of why Fair Use rights are important:
"Why does the public have a "fair use" right to use copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission?
At the doctrine's core is a fundamental belief that not all copying should be banned, particularly in socially important endeavors. The Supreme Court explained, "the fair use doctrine exists because copyright law extends limited proprietary rights to copyright owners only to the extent necessary to ensure dissemination to the public."
Copyright law serves as a regulatory scheme designed to balance the competing rights of creators to exploit their work, entrepreneurs to receive a return on their investment, and the public's interest in gaining access to works. The fair use doctrine and other public rights are designed to further the ultimate goal of disseminating knowledge to the public. In developing an information infrastructure that serves the public interest and encourages the open flow of information, it is essential to continue to balance the competing interests and preserve the public's fair use rights in an electronic environment as it has in more traditional formats."
Understanding Fair Use Rights [eff.org]
Re:Get Over Yourself (Score:3, Insightful)
The patch is optional only for today. Long term an optional, limited DRM system makes no sense.
Re:Get Over Yourself (Score:3, Insightful)
At least the holocaust deniers admit that, if it had happened, it would have been a horrible thing, but slimes like you say: Yeah, it happened, but it's no worse than a Microsoft software patch.
Re:The thin end of the wedge. (Score:4, Interesting)
au contraire mon frere. There are many components to Apple's technologies that are indeed, open source. Darwin (the core OS of OS X), Quicktime streaming server, Rendezvous, and others.
Roll up, roll up! (Score:5, Funny)
more pressure to move to Linux and other OSS (Score:5, Interesting)
Steel
Re:more pressure to move to Linux and other OSS (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re:more pressure to move to Linux and other OSS (Score:3, Informative)
select anything other then Unrestricted Access - which sounds like fear tactics to me - and this pops up
"Information Rights Management (IRM) in Microsoft Office 2003 helps prevent sensitive documents and e-mail messages from being forwarded, edited or copied by unauthorized people.
To use IRM you need to install the Windows Rights Management client. If you have an existing version.....bla bla bla....Do you want to download the latest version now?
Yes | No
I don't like t
Rights Managements Services (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Rights Managements Services (Score:5, Funny)
Is that why he's even adding it to his name now?
I don't know about that (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:Jeez (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It ain't that bad, yet (Score:3, Insightful)
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:It ain't that bad, yet (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and so does everyone else, including media, and MS.
They're not stupid; it will be far more subtle next next time around.
Re:Jeez (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
Yeah, that's why the spam problem was eliminated a few months after it first reared its head.
It DOES affect Joe Sixpack! (Score:3, Informative)
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)
heh (Score:2, Funny)
RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
I think not
How long? (Score:5, Interesting)
Good timing! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good timing! (Score:5, Insightful)
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)?
Re:Good timing! (Score:5, Informative)
No it's NOT sandwiched with other patches.
Yes, you CAN uninstall it.
Re:Good timing! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not required, until content makes it so (Score:3, Insightful)
Scenario:
Someone buys some RIAA CD and put it in the computer, of course they don't just play music anymore they launch flash but this time it tells them it needs to validate the CD and you can get the patch easily from Microsoft. Click here!
Or
You want to watch some movie clip at atomfilms, but it won't run without the DRM patch. Click here!
Or
The NYTimes won't load without DRM protection, afterall anyone can just copy and paste their HTML. Click here! Don'
Wow.... *sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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...
Re:Wow.... *sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)
Last I checked, Microsoft still had a virtual monopoly on desktop operating systems. So all those millions that Bill Gates is able to funnel into his pet causes came from overcharging the public. Also, while it's easy to count the number of people employed by Microsoft, what we don't
Re:Wow.... *sigh* (Score:3, Interesting)
(Source: UNICEF and WHO, April 25, 2003 [who.int].)
Re:Wow.... *sigh* (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming the 168 mil will make a difference---and I assume that it would---the people who don't die from malaria as a direct result of his charity would no doubt love to argue this point with you.
If he spent a far greater amount of his net worth on something idiotic like historic golf course preservation, I'd have to assume you'd feel he was more "generous."
Media Player 9 has had DRM since its launch (Score:5, Interesting)
awsome now drm all of your software (Score:5, Insightful)
Office 2003 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Office 2003 (Score:5, Insightful)
This means that it is impossible to build a non-MS piece of software that can read
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)
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)
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.
I welcome Windows Rights Management (Score:3, Funny)
They got the versions all wrong (Score:5, Funny)
RM-aware applications? (Score:4, Interesting)
Source of "anti-consumer" sentiment toward DRM (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, digital restrictions management protects authors[1] from consumers in several ways:
Supports Win98? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Supports Win98? (Score:5, Insightful)
Act FAST -- explain situation to your friends (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Act FAST -- explain situation to your friends (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Act FAST -- explain situation to your friends (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Act FAST -- explain situation to your friends (Score:4, Insightful)
And surely Microsoft has done nothing to earn animosity and distrust. It must be more of that jealosy of success we keep hearing about.
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.
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)
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.
Embedded in service packs? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Embedded in service packs? (Score:3, Informative)
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,
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
I Trust Microsoft (Score:3, Informative)
Who cares (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
Get the "restricted computing" meme going! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Get the "restricted computing" meme going! (Score:3, Informative)
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.
So MS is testing the water.... (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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
Download it, but do not install. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
They are stealing acronyms. (Score:3, Funny)
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.
For Linux loving, but Microsoft ambivalent ones (Score:4, Interesting)
Linus has said about the DRM issue.
Zealots on both sides of the DRM debate can bite
my fleshy ass.
I have mixed feelings about this... (Score:5, Interesting)
*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)
"Consuming" RM-protected information? (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
What is with Slashdot? (Score:4, Funny)
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]
You know what bothers ME most about this stuff? (Score:5, Interesting)
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....
Walking the thin line... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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)
You can be damn sure (Score:4, Insightful)
Complicated and unwieldy (Score:5, Informative)
They mention some of the technologies used: COM+, an Active Directory server,
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.
Perfect time for Apple - Switch already! (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
M$ snooping going on w/out that DRM patch (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Acronyms just to stick it to people? (Score:3, Funny)
Windows Rights Management System (RMS) will eventually give way to Windows Everybody Supports Rights management (ESR)
Just some FYI's (Score:3, Insightful)
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".
Re:also know as... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:also know as... (Score:3, Funny)