OT:Update on DRM

[mghtx]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/018223e4-52...0779e2340.html

Sony BMG, the joint venture record label, was on Friday forced into an embarrassing climbdown over its use of copy-protection technology on music CDs that exposed some PC users to hackers.

For now...until next time.

[Pedro Itriago]

Yeah!!! that's the way. Now, if only people realized that's the way MS has to proceed as well

[Cary B. Cornett]

Yeah!!! that's the way. Now, if only people realized that's the way MS has to proceed as well

It is MS itself that has to "realize" this change, and to do so at this point would require a MAJOR change in their overall corporate strategy, including extensive re-tooling of its OS code. There is no action by any individual, company, group or government now in progress that has ANY potential to motivate BG to change his strategy.

Only a mass exodus from MS products to fully compatible rival products, INCLUDING THE OS, could provide the necessary motivation. I suspect that eventually it will be possible for this to happen, at which time the only thing that will serve MS' interests is the tremendous inertia inherent in the IT policies of its major corporate customers. As long as GM, Ford, and many other major corporations remain standardized on MS products, many others will still feel compelled to purchase them, if only so that they have the skills needed to be employed at said companies.

Fully halting the Orwellian spread of invasive DRM technology will require MS and other dominant computer tech companies to be "brought to heel". If this happens at all, it will likely be a LONG road.

For these reasons, I am not prepared to celebrate victory yet.

[Absolute_Zero]

What specifically is MS doing that has you upset?

[Cary B. Cornett]

What specifically is MS doing that has you upset?

I'm not sure who the question is adressed to, but I'll take a stab at it.

First of all, their anti-competitive business practices serve to limit customers' choices, which lessens the pressure on MS to produce a better product. That is what got the anti-trust suit going against them (and the results of that were far less than satisfying to many of us, because they did not address the core underlying problems).

Then there is their effort to "prevent piracy". The authorization schemes that started with XP are no better at stopping determined thieves than earlier methods, while potentially creating serious problems for legitimate users. If you change enough things on your computer, XP decides you must have bootlegged it and requires re-authorization, usually requiring you to call MS and give them information that is none of their business in the first place.

There is also the "auto update'" stuff that can kick in without your knowledge or permission, and MS' ability to collect information from your computer without your knowledge.

Then there is "the future", as in pushing us toward running applications on remote servers, and even keeping our data "out there" instead of in our own equipment. It is one thing to have these as options, and quite another to have technology that tries to force us in that direction.

Oh, and let us not forget about "trusted computing" and its further inroads into our ability to even use "unapproved" software.

If MS will not abandon these strategies, I would frankly rather see them lose ALL of their market share to less paternalistic alternatives.

[mghtx]

Then there is "the future", as in pushing us toward running applications on remote servers, and even keeping our data "out there" instead of in our own equipment. It is one thing to have these as options, and quite another to have technology that tries to force us in that direction.

I am not happy with MS either but what really scares the *bleep* out of me is the U.N. trying to get total control over the whole net. DRM is child's play compared to that.

[Oz Nimbus]

There was a nice editorial in my local paper about the Sony fiasco today. Turns out they violated Canadian Copyright law by releasing those discs in Canada.... Someone forgot to tell them that a user can make as many backup copies as he damn well chooses, as long as he doesn't give them out or sell them.... That's how it works in the Great White North, anyway

-0z-

[Absolute_Zero]

I'm not sure who the question is adressed to, but I'll take a stab at it.

First of all, their anti-competitive business practices serve to limit customers' choices, which lessens the pressure on MS to produce a better product. That is what got the anti-trust suit going against them (and the results of that were far less than satisfying to many of us, because they did not address the core underlying problems).

Then there is their effort to "prevent piracy". The authorization schemes that started with XP are no better at stopping determined thieves than earlier methods, while potentially creating serious problems for legitimate users. If you change enough things on your computer, XP decides you must have bootlegged it and requires re-authorization, usually requiring you to call MS and give them information that is none of their business in the first place.

There is also the "auto update'" stuff that can kick in without your knowledge or permission, and MS' ability to collect information from your computer without your knowledge.

Then there is "the future", as in pushing us toward running applications on remote servers, and even keeping our data "out there" instead of in our own equipment. It is one thing to have these as options, and quite another to have technology that tries to force us in that direction.

Oh, and let us not forget about "trusted computing" and its further inroads into our ability to even use "unapproved" software.

If MS will not abandon these strategies, I would frankly rather see them lose ALL of their market share to less paternalistic alternatives.

Recommendations:
Control Panel/Security Center/Automatic Updates/Turn Off Automatic Updates

Aluminium foil
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

A lifelong sabbatical from /.

Irrational Microsoft hatred is soooo 90's

[UpTilDawn]

There is also the "auto update'" stuff that can kick in without your knowledge or permission

Never seen a problem with auto update when it's been turned off...... unless they're in there under the radar messin' with my stuff.... (then I'd be p**sed!!! )

XP/SP1 has been the best, most stable os of all five that I've used. Even the dreaded RE-Activation Process has been a piece o' cake every time I've needed to do it..... hardly worth getting freaked about.... even though I don't agree, AT ALL, with the principle....

Then again, nearly every software we "buy" is really "Rent-To-Own"...... except we never get to own it ..... Can't remeber a time that I had to email Tascam to unlock my 302 cassette...... or my poor Ibanez that I tore apart, refinished, broke, rebuilt, etc............... Ibanez never did take me to court for discovering how they wired the pickups and the active electronics.

DanT

[tomasino]

There was a nice editorial in my local paper about the Sony fiasco today. Turns out they violated Canadian Copyright law by releasing those discs in Canada.... Someone forgot to tell them that a user can make as many backup copies as he damn well chooses, as long as he doesn't give them out or sell them....
-0z-

Which is kinda whack bro, I mean how many copies of a music CD does one actually need for individual use?

To most folks, DRM represents an On/Off switch (today). Either you can make copies (in unlimited numbers) or you can't make any.

WHAT IF,,, DRM allowed you could to make 5 copies for home use? Would that satisfy the issue. If 5 copies isn't enough, how many do you need? That's a reasonable question. How many copies do you need?

Unlimited copying is not a reasonable expectation. Quantify the answer for yourself.