Rights Management Add-on for Internet Explorer Beta 2
Posted by Daniel Fleshbourne on 24 October 2003 - 08:35 · 84 comments & 6724 views
About the Author
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(13 replies)
#1 Posted by foonacha on 24 Oct 2003 - 09:07
- Might i suggest a boycott of this particular windows "feature"? Who in their right m ind is going to install something that allows others to tell you what you can & can`t see on the internet? If nobody downgrades their browsers capabilities with this Trojanware, they the sites who plan to charge *you* directly to view content will have to rethink their Insideous DRM plans. It`s all about turning the "free Internet" into a content managed;Disneyfied & credit card chargeable safe playground for Little kiddies...& their fee paying, easily lead,brain dead,AOL Surfing parents.
Don`t do it. -
#1.1 Posted by Jason on 24 Oct 2003 - 09:59
- The Rights Management Add-on for Internet Explorer is a way that Windows users can view files with restricted permission. These restrictions help people to prevent sensitive documents, Web-based information, and e-mail messages from being forwarded, edited, or copied by unauthorized individuals
Seem fine to me I will use it. -
#1.2 Posted by kingius on 24 Oct 2003 - 11:06
- Seems fine to me too. If I want to create a secure document (like an admin panel for news on my web site) I can add rights management as another layor of security over the existing username and password challenge.
-
#1.3 Posted by werejag on 24 Oct 2003 - 12:56
- here to take the blond haired they said, i said Seems fine to me too
here to take the blue eyed they said, i said Seems fine to me too
here to take the left handed they said, i said Seems fine to me too
here to take the dark skined they said, i said Seems fine to me too
here to take the ......
when will they come for you? -
#1.7 Posted by Fowen on 24 Oct 2003 - 14:57
- RM will never "Take Over" the internet. It is just another added security feature Microsoft is comming out with for developers. If you dont upgrade to it.... if a author has set RM then you cannot view the page even if he wants you to. How many people are running non microsoft browsers? Do you think people will design their own public site to be compliant with RM? NO. They would loose customers, visitors, and from all of that is MONEY. Without money they have no site.
This is basically going to be used to protect files that they only want a certain group of people to see. Not to regulate what and how you purchase things.
Last edited by 28526 on 24 Oct 2003 - 15:04 -
#1.8 Posted by BonkedProducer on 24 Oct 2003 - 17:56
QUOTE (#1.7) RM will never "Take Over" the internet.
Yeah - never - won't happen, cause you know the internet will still be great when every site out there has the ability, and in fact the need to use micro payments etc. why publish news for free on neowin, we can use DRM to make people pay us a 16th of a penny for each post they wish to view.... like so many sheep being led to slaughter.... sigh.
QUOTE This is basically going to be used to protect files that they only want a certain group of people to see. Not to regulate what and how you purchase things.
Now thanks to you I fully understand how it is we get into these situations - fools with no foresight go - GEE this is a huge step toward making more sheep accept this sort of thing - I'm all for it, because it could never be used to take away my freedoms. Then 5 years later we're dealing with DMCA or TCPA or the DON'T SAY THAT OR WE WILL KILL YOU FOR BEING A TRAITOR A - etc.-
#1.9 Posted by JaggedFlame on 24 Oct 2003 - 21:28
QUOTE we can use DRM to make people pay us a 16th of a penny for each post they wish to view.... like so many sheep being led to slaughter.... sigh.
See, that's exactly what's going to happen. Because all you people who don't like DRM are too busy bitching about it to make non-DRM sites and services.
Of course DRM is going to take over the Internet if the only people on the Internet are the ones using it. It's up to you to make things that don't require it.
QUOTE I'm all for it, because it could never be used to take away my freedoms.
Five years ago, you didn't even enjoy these freedoms because computers sucked too bad to do this kinda stuff on them. So "foresight" isn't exactly what you should be complaining about.-
#1.10 Posted by gameguy on 24 Oct 2003 - 23:38
QUOTE (#1. 
in fact the need to use micro payments etc. why publish news for free on neowin, we can use DRM to make people pay us a 16th of a penny for each post they wish to view.... like so many sheep being led to slaughter.... sigh.
sure, neowin could have the ability, but that doesn't mean they should/will do it. economics comes in to play here; people won't pay for something unless they want/need it. if someone really thinks neowin is that important (which is arguable
) they can pay the fee. for the rest who don't like paying for "what should be free", they won't pay.-
#1.13 Posted by em_te on 25 Oct 2003 - 19:54
QUOTE RM will never "Take Over" the internet.
But it'll ensure that Microsoft Windows, Windows Server and Internet Explorer are the only monopolies on the Internet.
QUOTE How many people are running non microsoft browsers?
Most mobile phones, PDAs and potential every non-PC like hardware device. New consumer devices should get smaller and lighter but if they are forced to run Windows to be able to view a document, then they will get fatter and heavier.
QUOTE Do you think people will design their own public site to be compliant with RM? NO. They would loose customers, visitors, and from all of that is MONEY.
Not unless the restriction saves more money by reducing piracy or if they manage to milk further money streams by requiring users to pay to print or save a web page.
-
#2 Posted by WS togermano on 24 Oct 2003 - 10:43
- I think them never updating IE6 was a good thing
-
(7 replies)
#3 Posted by fb- on 24 Oct 2003 - 10:54
- Uhhhh.. just another reason to continue using firebird. Why use IE, a browser designed to cater to the spammers/advertisers/malware makers of the net?
-
#3.1 Posted by kingius on 24 Oct 2003 - 11:07
- ....because Firebird wont be able to read the documents that are rights management protected, perhaps?
-
#3.3 Posted by nic on 24 Oct 2003 - 15:13
- Well then who needs it? I don't want to see their content if they are going to RM it! And I think that goes for a lot of people.
There is plenty of other content on the Internet. I have a feeling this RM thing is just going to help filter the crap.
In the corporate world, however, I see the uses of this between organization and organization. -
#3.6 Posted by BonkedProducer on 24 Oct 2003 - 17:58
QUOTE (#3.5) No, he was just considering other points of view.
Some people don't understand that concept here..... or anywhere for that matter - I feel old
-
#4 Posted by SimplyPotatoes on 24 Oct 2003 - 12:13
- lol what is wrong with making a secure document to only let you watch it, ive seen a few websites doing this so people dont leech their movies, only your comp can watch it anyone u send it to on MSN or w/e cannot. there no problem with this.
-
(10 replies)
#5 Posted by werejag on 24 Oct 2003 - 12:52
- any site that restrict me from using the content from the site i purchase it from doesnt get my money.
it like getting a car that you can only use on route 66 becuase it not allowed by the big brother to be else wheres. get an off road model that can go everywheres.
just say no to drm -
#5.1 Posted by kingius on 24 Oct 2003 - 13:02
- Obviously, if you purchased something, DRM wont stop you from using it.
It will stop you if you didnt purchase it though. -
#5.3 Posted by superrcat on 24 Oct 2003 - 14:04
QUOTE Obviously, if you purchased something, DRM wont stop you from using it.
It will stop you if you didnt purchase it though
Depends if you are using the DRM system that you are talking about. Is Microsoft going to allow developers to include support for cross-platform browsers?
If not, if you purchase something and are not using Windows, or IE, then Microsoft's DRM *will* prevent you from using it.-
#5.4 Posted by kingius on 24 Oct 2003 - 14:37
- In that case, I would just load up IE or WMP, what difference does it really make about what program I have to use?
-
#5.5 Posted by Sterling Christensen on 24 Oct 2003 - 17:28
- Free market economies work best when choice, and thus competition, isn't restricted by lack of interoperability. It would be better for consumers (YOU) if MS would play nice with alternatives. You would have higher quality software at a lower price from MS or from some other company.
Now do you care? -
#5.6 Posted by BonkedProducer on 24 Oct 2003 - 18:00
QUOTE (#5.1) Obviously, if you purchased something, DRM wont stop you from using it.
SHEEP SHEEP - YOU BELIEVE THE MARKETING HYPE!
So close but oh so far - so DRM won't keep me from fair use of items I purchase - so when the RIAA makes albums that can only be played 10 times before you have to "renew your license" DRM won't be stopping people from using it.... When you have pay $.05 for every page you create or edit in Word - DRM won't be taking anything away from you...
SHEEP!-
#5.7 Posted by RaGe- on 24 Oct 2003 - 20:06
QUOTE kingius on 24 Oct 2003 - 09:37
In that case, I would just load up IE or WMP, what difference does it really make about what program I have to use?
The difference is I don't like being told what programs I have to use to listen to music I purchased.-
#5.8 Posted by gameguy on 24 Oct 2003 - 23:41
QUOTE (#5.6) so when the RIAA makes albums that can only be played 10 times before you have to "renew your license" DRM won't be stopping people from using it....
the RIAA won't do that because people will completely stop buying CDs. that's just BS. it's the companies that set unjust permissions on their products that will be hurt by DRM, not the customers.-
#5.9 Posted by werejag on 25 Oct 2003 - 07:00
- drm is the key to groups like the riaa to exist. they will set unjust restiction by way of drm
-
(1 reply)
#6 Posted by g33kb0y on 24 Oct 2003 - 13:30
- I think the intended purpose of this was for corporations who want to protect their sensitive data from being retransmitted to other sources. I don't think it's going to be used mainstream to prevent you from downloading the latest Help files or documentational PDFs. I'm not concerned about it.
-
#6.1 Posted by BonkedProducer on 24 Oct 2003 - 18:05
- http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/
Wrong - that is the STATED goal of this to make it acceptable to the masses - but it is all part of the long term plans of TCPA. I don't know why I fight it... even on a tech site like this there are so many blinded by the light that they don't realize is a frieght train.
-
(4 replies)
#7 Posted by TheDeputy on 24 Oct 2003 - 14:05
- Why boycot this program? Something like this is good for organizations that need it. Of course the average person on the internet is not going to use this.
I was just at a Microsoft Security Conference yesterday and they talked about this and how they have RM in Office2003.
With regular NTFS/Share permissions you cannot control if someone prints it once they have it or forwards it once they have it or takes a print screen of it and then gives it away. With RM you can prevent that so if Person A only wants Person B to read it and they know Person B is a gossip person they can limit it so that only Person B can read the file and nothing else. It will disable Print, it will disable copy/paste it will disable Print Screen.
Features like this can be used in organizations that have problems with documents leaking and crap like that.
The only downfall is making sure your users do that 100%, becuase it's up to the user not the admin's to add these special RM permissions. -
#7.1 Posted by superrcat on 24 Oct 2003 - 14:07
- Did you read more into this at the "Microsoft Security Conference" *read marketing event*?
You have to purchase Microsoft's Identity Management Server System in order to even use the DRM in Office 2003. Or you have to use their trial system which is only good for 3 months, and then you can no longer access your information that you protected with their system unless you subscribe to their service. -
#7.2 Posted by TheDeputy on 24 Oct 2003 - 14:12
- No we have not used this product. I've read up on it and they were plugging it at this conference. The conference was bigger then just the RM stuff. It was just one topic, and becuase it's only like 2 weeks new I can see why they talked about it. Of course part of it would be marketing. You've got IT security admin's in a conference it only make sense to try and plug your product.
This product would not work well in our environment because we have way to many careless and stupid users that would not take to this and it would be a wasted effort -
#7.3 Posted by markjensen on 25 Oct 2003 - 00:46
- The product is being PUSHED as a way to prevent memos from leaking, etc... That is a GREAT way to get large corporations to use it - play up to their paranoia. Large companies use it, so smaller ones will have to, also. And independant contractors, too.... It gets everywhere!
And, the funny part is.... It CANNOT prevent memos from leaking! A screenshot. Hell, a cheezy POLAROID CAMERA can defeat this!
Marketing to ensure a stranglehold on passing information. Surely, no one evern thinks for a minute that Microsoft will make this technology freely available! It will be a tightly guarded secret that maintains thier market position. They will choose who gets the ability (probably for a fee), but don't let that fool you. MICROSOFT will be the ONLY on in control! There is AMPLE evidence that they have done this through their entire history! (Frankly, it is very cunning business managment on Bill's part, but it is rather unethical when used to totally eliminate competition) -
#7.4 Posted by TheDeputy on 25 Oct 2003 - 19:26
- Working as a Security Admin I think this is a great tool. Sure it will take a while to implement even if you say it will be pushed out to everyone. Not everyone will HAVE to use it as you say. But for those who do want to use it then it's a great tool.
As for your screenshot no you cannot take a screen shot as that function is disabled. Also Microsoft does know that you can take a picture of the screen or go down to the core of the video card and snag a very bad quality of the screen shot but the more difficult you make it for someone then the less chance it will happen. For your average know it all or gossip queen in the office this can prevent them from giving documents to other people in different areas they are not supposed to have. Sure it is not 100% but it is near impossible to get 100%.
In this conference Microsoft never said it has a fee, but for the RM Server i'm guessing there will be licenseing fee's like there is with every product out there. Your right Microsoft will not let this technology go free, why should they? They developed it, they own it, they can do what they want with it. So Microsoft develops a new application to program with, should that be free? They develop some new technology that lets you drive your car without you touching the wheel, they should give that out free?
Anyway the fact is, this is cool technology and can prove useful in the right application.
-
(1 reply)
#8 Posted by TheDeputy on 24 Oct 2003 - 14:10
- Microsoft said they will be working with 3rd Party companies so that everyone can get on the RM bandwagon. They will give this add in for companies like Adobe, Netscape, etc...
-
#8.1 Posted by zivan56 on 24 Oct 2003 - 14:21
- They apparently already have, here is what Firebird said:
Microsoft® DRM
File name: npdrmv2.dll
DRM Netscape Network Object
MIME Type Description Suffixes Enabled
application/x-drm-v2 Network Interface Plugin nip Yes
Microsoft® DRM
File name: npwmsdrm.dll
DRM Store Netscape Plugin
MIME Type Description Suffixes Enabled
application/x-drm Network Interface Plugin nip Yes
Last edited by 1297 on 24 Oct 2003 - 14:32
-
(13 replies)
#9 Posted by Spectre on 24 Oct 2003 - 14:28
- the DRM system is victim of so much ignorance (mostly from linux zealots and/or MS haters), it's almost tragic
what is DRM? let me clear this up once and for all.
suppose you are an employee at a big corporation and want to send confidential data across the internet to another person. if a hacker ever got a hold of your file, he could easily open it and read whatever confidential information you wrote in your document. with DRM, you simply load up the DRM window and specify who may or may not open the file. it's that simple.
without the DRM engine installed, you can't access protected files at all. installing DRM doesn't restrict you in any way, in fact, it allows you to manipulate protected documents that were meant for you.
as the author of your document, you can also enable/restrict other features, such as printing, sending files over e-mail and self-destruction of documents that are meant to expire.
it's safe to say that 99.9999% of all existing documents don't have to be DRM-protected and will not be. however, for those who DO need DRM (mostly companies), it's is a wonderful security tool.
and that is all. don't believe what conspiracy theorists and/or ignorant morons tell you, DRM really is useful. -
#9.1 Posted by kingius on 24 Oct 2003 - 14:40
- Finally, a sane voice!
People, stop the FUD, they are features we will all use once we have them. -
#9.2 Posted by superrcat on 24 Oct 2003 - 14:41
- Yes, DRM is really useful. It doesn't mean that DRM has to come from Microsoft. DRM should be standards-based and universally developed by many sources and organizations. Not a company that says here, install this plug-in. Not having standards-based DRM means you are relying on a single company for something. That is not a good situation. If you have a standards-based DRM system, then you have more choice and interoperability.
-
#9.3 Posted by kingius on 24 Oct 2003 - 14:44
- Perhaps the universities should stop spending years talking about these features when we need these things now. This is what MS understands.
-
#9.4 Posted by superrcat on 24 Oct 2003 - 14:46
QUOTE (#9.1) Finally, a sane voice!
People, stop the FUD, they are features we will all use once we have them.
You just think you install a dll file and you have rights management? You have to BUY Microsoft's Identity Management Server.
DRM should be a free standard, not some server product that you have to buy from Microsoft.-
#9.5 Posted by Spectre on 24 Oct 2003 - 14:54
- if you're looking for a standard, you should wait for the next generation secure computing base (palladium), coming in longhorn
palladium will be a hardware standard. DRM is basically a software-only concept of what palladium will ultimately do. of course, palladium will be much more powerful, but DRM is a good indication of what NGSCB is going to be like. -
#9.6 Posted by kingius on 24 Oct 2003 - 15:00
QUOTE You just think you install a dll file and you have rights management? You have to BUY Microsoft's Identity Management Server.
Actually, MS is producing API's to allow developers to include support for this in the applications, too, the server is a) a stop gap so you can have this now and b) an extra layor of security.-
#9.7 Posted by CheeseCow on 24 Oct 2003 - 16:13
- But even if it will be used for good, it does give the content creator much more control, at the expense of the buyer. Do I want that as a consumer? No. Do those who now have problems with mass-distributing digitally, because it is easy to duplicate see easy $$ coming? Most definetively.
If you want security, encryption and hybrid passwords will get the job done; no DRM needed. However, if you don't trust people, then perhaps DRM has a mission. -
#9.8 Posted by BonkedProducer on 24 Oct 2003 - 18:08
QUOTE (#9.7) If you want security, encryption and hybrid passwords will get the job done; no DRM needed. However, if you don't trust people, then perhaps DRM has a mission.
AMEN!-
#9.9 Posted by Spectre on 24 Oct 2003 - 20:36
QUOTE But even if it will be used for good, it does give the content creator much more control, at the expense of the buyer.
but the content creator IS the buyer.
QUOTE If you want security, encryption and hybrid passwords will get the job done; no DRM needed.
DRM offers just that, but it's built into the office application and it works in more ways than just password protection.
QUOTE However, if you don't trust people, then perhaps DRM has a mission.
don't trust people? why, what do you mean by that?
-
#9.10 Posted by gameguy on 24 Oct 2003 - 23:46
QUOTE (#9.7) If you want security, encryption and hybrid passwords will get the job done; no DRM needed. However, if you don't trust people, then perhaps DRM has a mission.
it's not just for people who don't trust others with their documents. it's also if you give it to someone and their computer or email account gets broken into. but i think the larger market is for those who aren't exactly trusting of the general public.-
#9.11 Posted by mr_da3m0n on 25 Oct 2003 - 05:36
QUOTE
mostly from linux zealots and/or MS haters
*coughs*
I'd say from uneducated people. Don't generalize
-
#9.12 Posted by TheDeputy on 25 Oct 2003 - 19:29
QUOTE (#9.4) DRM should be a free standard, not some server product that you have to buy from Microsoft.
Well it's not, MS developed it and therefore they can do what they want with it. So SMS should be free? SQL server should be free? It's the same thing. It's called a business and you don't give away technology you develop for free-
#9.13 Posted by em_te on 25 Oct 2003 - 20:21
QUOTE (#9.0) if a hacker ever got a hold of your file, he could easily open it and read whatever confidential information you wrote in your document. with DRM, you simply load up the DRM window and specify who may or may not open the file.
A hacker would still be able to open it with DRM because Microsoft security is a joke. The only people that won't be able to open it are the casual people and law abiding folks.
Also another problem with DRM is the illusion of security. While an employer may specify in a DRMed file that only Smithers can read it, Fat Tony would have intercepted it and leaked the contents onto the market. Then Mr. Burns would sue Smithers for leaking the document and Judge Snyder will agree with Mr. Burns because he thinks that DRM is fool proof.
-
(2 replies)
#10 Posted by aristotle-dude on 24 Oct 2003 - 16:35
- Guys, there is no use arguing with lemminngs. M$ tells them to bend over and they say "yes sir" and think it's the best thing since sliced bread. They will never learn that proprietary is bad and "open" standards are good when it comes to software interfaces.
People always complain about the proprietary nature of the Motherboard of macs (just the tweaked Open Firmware) while extolling the virtues of proprietary M$ software. Personally, I prefer proprietary motherboard chipsets with Open standards software to proprietary software interfaces any day. -
#10.1 Posted by g33kb0y on 24 Oct 2003 - 17:54
- <-- there isn't enough space on the page to put as many of those as I think are necessary to your comment.
-
#10.2 Posted by BonkedProducer on 24 Oct 2003 - 18:13
- Good sheep... here have some DRM.. it's good it will protect you... graze upon the goodness... here, now I have something more for you... you loved the DRM... how about a little subscription based software licenses... just think only a nickle every time you type a letter - but you get purty colors and smilie faces in your email now and in fact we'll drop the initial price of the software... good sheep.... what you've spent $5000 this year sending letters and e-mails that look pretty... what your friends that use other OSs that compete with us aren't allowed to view the files... what You don't like DRM you've been grazing on... well too bad sheep your good shepherd TCPA knows what's best for you -
Microsoft knows well that you can shear a sheep many times, but only skin them once.... unfortunately most of the posts I've read today make me think a lot of you "Tech Savvy" folk are ready to be happily skinned.
-
#11 Posted by foonacha on 24 Oct 2003 - 18:30
- leave `em to their corporate dreams of secrecy...i`m more concerned about the future implications of allowing the MS Monopoly (for that is effectively what this company has worldwide-Linux notwithstanding) to dictate to me/the world what can & can`t be run on my own equipment in the privacy of my own home.
If everyone refused to install this control freakery, then any sites that were thinking of instituting pay to view on anything you can view gratis currently couldn`t do so. Their revenues from advertising & page hits would dwindle to nothing if it can be proved that noone will pay to look at such content.
Sure, there`ll always be those who will maintain sites that won`t need such draconian measures.We will still be able to look at those - but they will become less visible if we blindly allow ourselves to be lead down the path to DRM.The internet as we know it will eventually fall into the corporate control of those who exist to persue the almighty dollar, rather than the free disemination of information & thought.
-
(2 replies)
#12 Posted by BigBoy on 24 Oct 2003 - 19:15
- Okay, so - let's just ignore dumb comments on this page (pelnty!) and look at what this does:
QUOTE
How It Works
Authors can set restricted permission to limit what a reader can do with the content they receive. These restrictions are customizable, that is, one person may view the document but not print it, another may do both, and a third person may view and print the document, but only for five days.
Authors can restrict permission to Web-based information as they create it, and then save the content as a rights-managed HTML file (with the file name extension .rmh). If the readers have installed the Rights Management Add-on, they can open the file and use the contents, based on the permission that the author has given them.
Authoring applications, such as word processors, can also create documents with restricted permission that can be opened in either the authoring application or in a Web browser. The authoring program includes a rights-managed HTML version of the document within the original file. Restrictions are applied to the whole file.
Now - I am sure that there are many "conspiracy theory" people that know better, of course. The bottom line is - DRM is an attempt to make a standard of protecting your documents. Did you know that Adobe Acrobat files had many of those features for years now? -
#12.1 Posted by foonacha on 24 Oct 2003 - 20:43
- As a "Dumb Commenter",Yes, Acrobat format documents have been around for quite a while... yet if the mainstream wished to use such encription technology in everyday scenarios, don`t you think it would already have become the defacto format of choice?
The keyword here is *choice*. What choice do you think the average punter will have once DRM tech is either slipstreamed into your version of Windows,or hardcoded onto chips which come with all future motherboards & palladium? Complacency in this issue will result in the gradual errosion of the freedoms you currently enjoy online. You don`t have to be a "Conspiracy Theorist" to recognise who really benefits from the introduction of this technology: Big Business & Governments who wish to "control" the flow of information to the population at large.
Yet all you can see is how cool the tech would be to stop someone reading your emails & .docs? How easily the herd is swayed...
-
(2 replies)
#13 Posted by thexfile on 24 Oct 2003 - 19:31
- Couldn't you just .RAR a file with a password?
-
#13.1 Posted by JaggedFlame on 24 Oct 2003 - 21:37
- Great idea! Let's stop sending e-mails and just send huge .RAR attachments to everyone!
-
#13.2 Posted by mr_da3m0n on 25 Oct 2003 - 05:40
-
I don't know, I might be uneducated, if so, feel free to enlighten me.
I tought RAR was a compressed format, this making the files smaller in size.
However, the problem is that using rar files with a password would be CLUMBERSOME and unefficient.
You could always do that with PGP.
But you know...
You could do the same with a PDF file as well... I just don't like the fact that DRM will be Windows/Office/IE only... what about other platforms...?
-
(1 reply)
#14 Posted by gameguy on 24 Oct 2003 - 23:58
- DRM will most likely be used for things you buy and things that not everyone is supposed to see, which might be free to you, but you shouldn't distribute it because it's a confidential file. so what does everyone have to fear? you pay for something online, you get to use it just like you normally would, but you can't share/distribute/sell it. is that really so bad? for most things DRM will be used for, the content really isn't your's in the first place, so what's so bad about it?
-
#14.1 Posted by em_te on 25 Oct 2003 - 21:13
QUOTE (#14.0) the content really isn't your's in the first place, so what's so bad about it?
This brings up a larger issue of intellectual property. Intellectual property is yours only because the law says it's yours.
To revisit the Constitution:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
And the government has enacted copyright laws and patent laws to fulfill this.
Now what DRM does is enforce, with technology, all arbitrary claims of ownership that may not have passed the governmental requirements for being intellectual property (in other words "ownable". What that means is that it may not really be yours but you still have the technological means to control it after releasing it to the public.
-
(5 replies)
#15 Posted by markjensen on 25 Oct 2003 - 00:53
- Think about all that would be different if DRM existed in the past...
There would have been no Watergate scandal, and Nixon could have been president much longer.
Crooked businesses, like Enron and others, would be able to conveniently be devoid of documentation that pointed to guilt.
The tobacco companies would be able to merrily pump out billions of cigarettes that had no proof of bad side effects such as DEATH.
Ahhh... I welcome the new dis-information superhighway that Bill is building... -
#15.2 Posted by markjensen on 25 Oct 2003 - 01:06
- Everything has its good and bad points. Even Windows!
(just making a joke, of course. Please don't everyone flame me at once!)
-
#15.3 Posted by JaggedFlame on 25 Oct 2003 - 03:07
- They wouldn't be different all that much. They'd still be required by law to produce the documents that were protected.
-
#15.4 Posted by werejag on 25 Oct 2003 - 07:11
- but no document exists for you to get. its been drm and you cant get access to it.
-
#15.5 Posted by JaggedFlame on 25 Oct 2003 - 16:09
- So, they're breaking the law.
-
(2 replies)
#16 Posted by MitchShrader on 25 Oct 2003 - 03:43
- DRM supports a monopoly that has been seen to be high profit. Yes? Anybody think billy got rich breaking even? Anybody think billy getting richer isn't what billy's about? Anybody think this profit won't come out of YOUR (not mine, folks!) pockets? puhLEESE get a grip on reality. Oh, doodah its so Wonderful to be a sheep and eat this nice green grass, and the sheepherder has such NICE tall boots and velcro kneepads..
-
#16.1 Posted by JaggedFlame on 25 Oct 2003 - 04:33
- Anyone think that the above poster is a moron for thinking "billy" has so much to do with Microsoft's activities?
Talk about a grip on reality. Guess who runs the company, huh? Sheesh.
-
#17 Posted by thexfile on 25 Oct 2003 - 06:32
- Here I stand a dam idiot... I installed DRM and every time I restart a window with DRM folder shows up...
"trust no one"
-
(3 replies)
#18 Posted by werejag on 25 Oct 2003 - 07:06
- its funny any time something comes from redmond. jaggedflame, kingius and gameguy are talking about how good it will be, how it will be the best for us all and all the linux zealots and/or MS haters are just haters of microsoft.
when will you three every wake up and see the truth that microsoft is doing this to smug out alternative oses and your rights at the cost of your wallets -
#18.1 Posted by Spectre on 25 Oct 2003 - 11:40
- it's funny that every time something comes from redmond you flame it without presenting any arguments.
ironically, if some linux distro were doing the same thing, you'd be hailing it as the next revolutionary step in computing.
saying something smugs out alternative OSes at the cost of our wallets is meaningless unless you tell us how and why. but you can't do that, can you? -
#18.2 Posted by markjensen on 25 Oct 2003 - 12:18
QUOTE (#18.1) ironically, if some linux distro were doing the same thing, you'd be hailing it as the next revolutionary step in computing.
Well, the counterpoint to that line of argument is that when there is code for Linux, the source is out in the open. And, if published under the LGPL, anyone (including Microsoft and MS users) is free to use that code. To examine it. All OSes are on a level and fair playing ground for this, and no one could be shut out.
My personal feelings toward DRM are somewhat negative. It is an interesting concept with some good features (copyright protection), and a lot of potential misuses and abuses.
Regardless of this, open code would be MUCH more preferable to unknown code. Having the code open does not mean that DRM would be any easier to defeat. Look at the Public/Private key encryption scheme: GPG (GnuPG) is the Open Source equivalant to PGP encryption. The method of encryption for PGP/GPG ensures the same security even if you have the source code.
As for you other Linux users, like me, DRM is here. It's going to happen. It will happen. Please, let's focus our efforts on something productive instead of mindless lashing out (I see some senseless MS bashing here, but I also see some good arguments).
Just my 2 cents.-
#18.3 Posted by JaggedFlame on 25 Oct 2003 - 16:10
- When the hell did I say I like DRM? I like Rights Management. I like Palladium. But, I don't like DRM in general because RIAA and other companies are going to abuse the crap out of it.
But, as usual, werejag's not reading. He's just assuming and spreading FUD, with a healthy dose of stalking.
Document authors, Web site authors, and creators of Web-based applications can deliver protected information by restricting permission. This provides protection, not only while the information is in transit, but also after the recipient of the information has received it.
Note: In order for you to successfully run the Rights Management Add-on for Internet Explorer (RMA) Beta 2 please first install the Windows Rights Management client (RM). Installing the RM client places software on your computer that allows it to respond to requests for licenses and keys. The RMA will not correctly run without installing the RM client before the RMA.