Microsoft's DRM vision

Posted Aug 1, 2005 17:33 UTC (Mon) by emkey (subscriber, #144) [Link]

Posted Aug 1, 2005 17:41 UTC (Mon) by thompsot (guest, #12368) [Link]

Posted Aug 1, 2005 18:25 UTC (Mon) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]

Remember copy protection on floppies?

Remember copy protection on CDs?

The great unwashed public has better things to do than worry about theoretical hassles in the future. They'd rather worry about what's on the bbq next weekend. But when they get hit directly by stupidity, they revolt. I simply can't see the mass of people putting up with such nonsense. Microsoft can put in all the DRM they want, but when people find they can't play CDs under normal circumstances, if they find out they can only play their rental DVD on one machine, and then only once, that they can't take it over to a friend's house for a second showing, that if they install certain games, the CD player stops .... people will complain, and it will be to Dell, or Gateway, or Microsoft itself, and those 800 calls will pile up. The advantage of having a great uninformed public is that when things go wrong they complain, without knowing they are supposed to put up with it. And when they find out the powers that be are trying to ram such stupidity down their throats, they get mad.

I simply do not believe this is going anywhere other than the same trash bin that holds the late unlamented DivX evaporating DVD.

Posted Aug 1, 2005 19:15 UTC (Mon) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link]

"Perhaps most significantly, the PE will be subject to a "global revocation list" maintained by Microsoft and distributed through Windows Update and possibly other channels. Microsoft will maintain and sign the revocation list, and its updates will have ever-increasing version numbers. Works meant to be played back through PMP can require a particular minimum revocation list version number; the PE will not allow a restricted work to be played at all unless the computer has loaded a revocation list at least as recent as the one specified by the work. If a software component appears on the revocation list, the PE will not load it, or will warn applications that a revoked software component has been loaded."

The system is too complex, too shortsighted, too centralized, too single vendor to work. It won't happen and if it happens, it will be broken. If it happens and is not broken immediately, it is against several laws that protect competition.

Gee, what a chain of hardware, software and network requirement to enable you to play the music you bought.

Just one thought. The rights on a recording of a performance will last for 50 years, after that the recording will be free of rights (unless law changes during these years). Will the system work for five decades? Will it evaporate after that? Will I have to use the same hardware for 50 years to execute the rights I have bought. Where do I go if I can't play my music after 15 years? (Ever tried to open a 15 yoears ol MS Word document?)

The demand for this functionality is not a real demand but just some paranoia from the entertainment industry. An industry build on the idea that recording, duplication and distribution is difficult, and now wants to keep the world from turning. You had the same kind of stupid ideas about Xerox machines. There were some restrictions like these in DAT and DCC hardware. DCC failed completely, DAT never reached the consumer market. Professional users of DAT are not at all amused by these features. When will the industry understand that "making copies" is fair use in most countries.

The schema reminds me of the stupid SCO license enforcement schema. That schema helped a lot to convince management to completely dump SCO and switch to Linux.

Posted Aug 1, 2005 20:01 UTC (Mon) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]

Not that anybody is planning that now or anything... but they sure could do it, and I bet there are some who would think it would be great if they could. (Would the Senate, for example, like the idea of being able to disable all computers that have "Grand Theft Auto" installed?)

Although-- people are planning to do that now. Strictly speaking, copyright *is* censorship. (It's a law passed by the government that limits what you can say or publish. It fits the definition....)

-Rob

Posted Aug 2, 2005 1:20 UTC (Tue) by darthmdh (guest, #8032) [Link]

That's why they are introducing the exact same system, but subtly. First, they make legal precedent that applications that run on their operating system are "integral" to its operation - using something innoculous as a web browser. So next time, when its an application that provides DRM and cripples the functionality of the system, they can call back on that precedent to say "we can't remove it" when the proverbial fit hits the shan. Next, they aquire services that have traditionally relied on a subscription model such as anti-virus and anti-spyware programs. They can then claim it makes good business sense to shift their other software to this model for any number of reasons you can think of - streamlining their business practice, it cuts costs, easier to train staff in a single sales process, whatever. Since the inception of Windows NT they have had security levels higher than Administrator, effectively taking control out of the hands of the human owner/operator. They could potentially argue that this is an accepted industry practice that has gone on for over a decade with little disagreement.

Also, don't forget that their illegal monopoly worldwide means that a US company has ultimate control of the majority of computer systems on the planet - something their government isn't about to take away given the huge military/strategic advantage that is to them. It's no surprise why they were not punished like every other company that has been found guilty of breaking the same law(s).