A recent slashdot article outlined some of the DRM that can be found in the new Microsoft stab at relevancy - Windows 7.
I'm hearing that Vista thing didn't work out so well.
As a GNU/Linux-only user...one who wouldn't have one byte of MS code on his machine, I find the criticism valid...I would no more let Microsoft control my computer than I would ever purchase one of their products.
Unfortunately, Peter Bright, the author of the ars technica piece doesn't see a thing wrong with it. Peter goes on to excoriate the slashdot piece just like any good Redmond apologist would but it was the last paragraph of the article that snatched me by the nether regions:
All these Vista DRM features are found in Windows 7. But just as with Vista before it, the vast majority of users will never see the DRM in any practical sense; the features are there just in case Hollywood decides to make use of them. The overblown, unrealistic, and just plain made up horrors of DRM in Windows Vista never came to pass (in spite of the huge publicity that the Gutmann diatribe received), and so it will be with Windows 7.
Peter, let's take a look at this.
"...the features are there just in case Hollywood decides to make use of them."
Hey, I have to ask the question...You're really ok with this? Just how many people will you allow to stomp around inside your computer Peter, until it's not ok? I would think you and millions of others would have had a gut full of Microsoft meddling with the discovery of the Sony rootkit. Or doing the exact opposite of what you instructed Microsoft Operating Systems to do.
Apparently not.
Peter, this is my computer and everything within it is mine, to include the data and anything I choose to do with that data. No one can legally allow any third party to do a damn thing inside my machine that I don't personally allow. I did not click "I agree" anywhere during the install process.
That I allow Peter.
You may be fine with Microsoft owning your data and that is sad enough, but to defend their "right" to do so is beyond sad. And yes, they do own your data. If they are keeping you from doing what you willfuly choose to do, regardless of purpose or motive, then they own it. You cannot couch it any other way. On top of that, you are choosing to use a product that dictates you purchase or use another product in order for that first product to work.
Oh, you don't do that?
Got anti virus?
This says much about any person who is willing to sacrifice their freedom in exchange for not taking a few hours to learn something different. Something that does not dictate how you use your own machine.
And please...don't trot out the lame old arguments that GNU/Linux is too hard...we have 11 year olds picking it up in less than an hour, hundreds of them. Maybe one of them could give you a hand should you need it.
The tide is turning, slowly yes, but turning it is. Upcoming global events such as Linux Against Poverty will do what needed to be done a long time ago. It will act as the first actual radio and television Linux commercials to be broadcast nationwide.
Then we'll see Peter. Sure there are many like you...those who think nothing of bending at the throne of Redmond in order to use your computer in the way you are accustomed. Let's see what the reaction is when others see the facts presented to them without the marketing hype...when they find out the shenanigans Windows has been carrying out inside their computers. When the news travels outside the confines of ars technica.
How does Mr. Gates think of those that made him filthy rich?
*Since when has the world of computer software design been about what people want? This is a simple question of evolution. The day is quickly coming when every knee will bow down to a silicon fist, and you will all beg your binary gods for mercy. - Bill Gates
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/quotes/bill_gates.html
An awakening approaches...and it approaches sooner than you or many others may be comfortable with. A day when people en mass discover they have a choice in how they operate their computers.
A day when true computing freedom is presented to everyone.
One is only a victim until they discover they have a choice Peter. After that, the personal descriptors are much less kind. "Victim" seems almost gentle.
All-Righty Then
*the quote from Bill Gates is contested as legitimate. Common belief is that it is spoofed but other sources quote it as accurate. We don't know either way. Just judge from Microsoft's actions whether you think he is capable of saying/did say it. - h
Monday, March 23, 2009
ars technica - Windows DRM? We're ok with that.
blather and mumbling provided by Unknown at 6:18 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
Cool. Another uneducated troll piece. Seems like a theme here. Its funny how the GNU zealots like to push the "Freedom" talking points handed down by Stallman while being shamefully dishonest at the same time.
So let me ask you. Provide a single verifiable proof that enabling the OS to play media files which are DRM protected has a negative effect when you don't own DRM protected media. Ofcource not. You cant prove anything. Not only are you technically incompetent to prove it you are also technically incompetent to comment on it. Yet we are supposed to take your troll posts as the "truth"?
Insane Zealots: Yeah, the enemy is out to get you. See they own you. They are trying to take your data away from you. OMG DRM DRM. OMG. Microsoft is trying to spy on your data. OMG OMG. Linux is the answer.
Sane Person: But.. Microsoft is a publicly traded company, its in their best interest to not to piss of the public. Why would they spy on their users? Arent people already buying their OS? Arent they setting record profits without doing spying? Why would they enable DRM unless their users werent already purchasing DRM media from iTunes, etc? Why would a company that makes billions of dollars care that could purchase entires countries care about movie studios?
Insane Zealot: Shh.. Stop the logical thinking. MS is evil.. You must use Linux...
--
Yeah I guess the only way you can get people to switch is to inject fear.
Yeah, I'd post this as anonymous too if I were you?
"So let me ask you. Provide a single verifiable proof that enabling the OS to play media files which are DRM protected has a negative effect when you don't own DRM protected media"
You seem like a bright lad...smart enough to dodge the drm landmines, unfortunately; many are not. Mom and Pop put in their Mama's and Papa's disk with the obligitory DRM'd code and BANG...then they are given a nasty lesson in the DRM thing. He doesn't have to "prove" anything. The fact that DRM IS present within the system is his point. Now run off and shine Steve's shoes or something.
Another person who kneels at the throne helios. You have a talent for bringing them forward, I'll give you that.
Chelle Minkin
Not only are you technically incompetent to prove it you are also technically incompetent to comment on it.
Arent they setting record profits without doing spying?
Do you eat without food falling out of your mouth? First you accuse the author of being technically incompetent then you create a myth of "record profits"? Microsoft has been a flatline stock for 6 years pal. Oh, don't tell me it's STILL in YOUR portfolio?
Chelle's right, you might want to hang on to that anonymous tag.
Mike Zimmer - Seattle
Well, I recall Wall Mart's DRM case, where to play the music bought at their store, your DRM software connected to WM's server and authenticated the music. Until one day when they decided they didn't want to sell music anymore and dropped the authentication servers. And a lot of people were unableto play the legally bought music.
Of course, after moths of catching slack they fired the servers up again, but that's not the point. The point is that a coporate decision worked against valid client's data, all because Windows provided the mechanism for Wall Mart to use, allowing Wall Mart control over the user's data.
Note that Anon Ymous did not address the fact that DRM IS present in Windows. As well, he seemed to dodge the question of why one should even have to use "protection". Now that's a wise consumer. "Here, buy this product then buy another one so it won't crap all over your floor."
Man would I love to sell you a car.
Just glad I'm washed of that silliness years ago.
"Yeah I guess the only way you can get people to switch is to inject fear."
That only works with people smart enough to recognize a threat.
You seem to be well out of danger
Wow. Nice article Helios :) But this anonymous poster calling this an "uneducated troll piece" and "dishonest"?
Cases in point where outside control of one's system is a Bad Thing:
Walmart. Another poster mentioned this one - it's covered.
MS Office Activation: no activation, no editing of files _YOU CREATED_.
Regardless, if someone else has access to your system, it's not your system. MS has the ability to shut you down - and they have the ability to spy on your usage as well. Regardless of whether they take advantage of those abilities or not, how can that be good? Seriously?
Why would Microsoft spy on their users? They DO it all the time - activation servers are not idle, and every user of MS software is assumed to be a thief until they prove otherwise via activation and the "Genuine Advantage" program. If you have to call MS to activate, they have your phone number and therefore your name and address as well. Your IP is traceable to you. An OEM system might not require validation, but is still subject to the "genuine advantage" program. Only an MS employee might try to dispute these facts. What possible use can this information be to MS? And why treat everyone like a thief?
Ubuntu and the other flavors of "Linux" (which actually refers to the kernel, but we know what I'm saying here) are a valid and valuable alternative. They give the user control over the system and data - and that system and data are TRULY their own.
While I currently run OS X most of the time, I've used various distributions since I downloaded slackware floppy disk images with a 0.9X kernel via a bbs (yes, before I even had dialup internet). I've programmed on Unix via a terminal. I've run MS-Dos (and other Dos variants). I've run Windows since the 286XT days. And Solaris, and OS X (and various versions of MacOS before that). And I currently keep Ubuntu on this machine as well.
I believe that I'm very qualified to state an opinion here - and in MY opinion, "Linux" IS great - and so are the efforts by Helios here - and MS, well some things are better left UNSAID. As for the "dishonest", "uneducated troll"...
Cool. Another Anonymous comment. this discussion seems utterly pointless as each side blatantly ignores the arguments of the other. I agree, Dear 'Anonymous' that it is not in microsoft's interest to piss people off. the only question is the definition of 'pissing off' and the options they have. If they have no options - or see no options - i am sure that all the not pissing off thing goes to background.
Do you bother not pissing off people who have no power against you? Well i guess this depends on your moral principles. And as you pointed out Microsoft is a publicly traded company. See Mr Gates' Quote.
Second point. Who is insulting whom here? As far as I can see the article did not make any comment about the average windows user sanity or wit.
I will not even bother attacking you on your arguments since you did not expose any. Your post is sheer and pure waste of my bandwidth (as actually is my answering to it since you will probably not even bother to read through it), thank god there is plenty of it now.
Final note. you have a big point with Fear. But most people fear difference more than privacy. They fear learning far more than decay. It is their choice. I am no linux zealot or advocate. Use what suits you best. For me it is something I am in control of.
Regards,
Nickolai
Helios,
Point to be noted here. Did you take notice of the very response? It was a detractor, not a supporter.
You are doing something right when your detractors feel the need to attack your blog within minutes of publication. Compare the time stamps.
That means someone is watching you, hence you are a threat.
Congratulations.
helios, these apologists cannot argue the points you present so they gnaw around the edges of others. Great points and ones that should be pondered by anyone cognisant of a choice.
The poster above nailed it...they rather blind themselves to the truth than expend the energy to make a change. Comfort in exchange for freedom.
Pathetic.
Microsoft may be getting nervous precisely because they do spy on Windows systems. As was mentioned recently on another blog, they know PRECISELY how many Windows XP/Vista licenses are being wiped and replaced by something else - at least, in the home sector. I am in the market for a high-end netbook without Windows and have just got an e-mail back from a supplier that they don't sell Asus PCs without windows ...
I just read that Ars Technica article. If you dig into the comments left on that, you can see his comments on another subject (which I think Helios would take a large issue with).
After reading that article, the authors comments to it, and the authors comments on a different subject, I don't think I'll read or even worry about other things that author has written or will write in the future.
Brent
Excellent point, Randy. Giving up freedom because they don't like change. The absolute definition of pathetic.
It's sad, but if they want to keep pumping money into the Microsoft Machine so they can have their DRM infested, poorly coded, lacking of any kind of security, software, well, let them. I, for one, am very happy to have been Microsoft-free for the past 10 years and look forward to the next 10 years without Microsoft. MS "may not" be actively spying on its customers but wouldn't it make you a little nervous knowing that they could?
-Chad McCullough
Ah! Blissful ignorance. You're the whistleblower. People look at you like you're crazy until their computer stops responding. Computers are machines. They are not unfailible but should be fairly reliable and behave fairly predictably. You get a strong feeling of "I told you so" and then they tell you that they never saw it coming. Weird, huh!
One of the big problems I have with DRM is the assumption on the part of all these companies that your computer works for them, and not you. If that assessment sounds a bit harsh, a bit unfair, I submit that it comes down to a matter of trust. These companies feel they cannot trust you, but in return for their product or services you are expected to blindly trust them. I'm sorry. Trust cannot be assumed, it cannot be given, it cannot even be earned. Trust must be verifiable. Okay, so Microsoft wants me to verify that I am the proper owner of Windows before I can install and use it. I may not be too crazy about that, but, given sufficient guarantees of my privacy, that may be acceptable. *May* be. I'd like to be able to *verify* that Microsoft can be trusted. I might not actually do it, but I'd like the option, anyway. Unfortunately, DRM requires unverifiable trust be given. There is no way to know that something fishy isn't going on under the covers (But we all know that a big company, such as, oh, Sony would never do anything fishy, right?), given the very nature of DRM. The DRM might even be acceptable (or not) if it wasn't tied into the operating system itself. What do you mean, Windows can turn off my video and/or audio if it sees something it doesn't like? Who died and made Windows king? Oh, yeah, right.
It all comes down to trust. A computer's operating system is too important to be kept secret. While I might not be able to read and understand the full source code of a particular operating system, there are enough people out there who can, and do. Those people will quickly flag anything suspicious that may appear in published source code. Trust is being able to verify.
Now, I don't mind using closed-source software such as MS Office, as long as I can trust the operating system it's running on to shield me from the most egregious violations of my privacy and security.
Actually, there *is* one way I'll trust Windows, and that's if it's running in a Virtual Machine, cut off from everyone and everything but the host (which in my case is Ubuntu). I may not trust Windows, you see, but I trust the operating system it's running on, and that's good enough for me.
>> Provide a single verifiable proof that enabling the OS to play media files which are DRM protected has a negative effect when you don't own DRM protected media.
I can tell you a few things.
You can do anything with any data on a computer through the Operating System (at least on PCs which boot up to the Operating System that will run at the highest privilege level).
With Linux, you have the source code verified by anyone in the world and compiled on the spot if you want (or pick the 3rd party you trust to do it for you). With Windows, you don't have that.
It's not that hard to take information on a computer or to generate some as the computer is being used, store it, obfuscate it, and have these bits be shoveled out into the Internet. Also, this or any data can be modified however the OS wants, at any point in time.
>> Ofcource not. You cant prove anything.
I don't know if I could if I attempted, but I will tell you that 3rd party malware writers have a blast with Windows computers. They have surely found the ways to seize control and capture data.
I can also tell you that it is very difficult to recognize the meaning of data if it is changed and communicated in bits and pieces (even without uncrackable encryption).
While a computer is running, a few key bits can be downloaded from the Internet and then used to help facilitate this process. Then the bits can be deleted forever. We all know MSware has many ways to be controlled remotely. If third parties can tap into these remote access points, surely Microsoft can as well (or Microsoft partners, etc).
>> Not only are you technically incompetent to prove it you are also technically incompetent to comment on it.
I'm waiting for you to deny what I am saying.
>> Microsoft is a publicly traded company, its in their best interest to not to piss of the public.
Of course, what the public doesn't know or understand well doesn't piss them off. So what was your point?
Not only is their main goal, legally, to make profits, but companies break the law all the time. Microsoft breaks it more than many others.
What is in the best interest of the public? What is in the best interest of stockholders? What is in the best interest of Microsoft management? These are not only subjective, but we already got a glimpse of what Bill Gates thinks about this (read the blog posting). And these are in conflict. I mean the fact Microsoft hasn't made their customers' security their top priority since day one, obviously says something about diverging priorities. I don't think Bill Gates went into business to spend all his time and money (to the last second and cent) to make sure his customers are the safest he can achieve for them.
A video I saw recently spoke of how frequently the law is violated. Sarbanes Oxley did nothing to change human nature.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is no more powerful piece of software on an typical PC than the Operating System. What's more, the computer is key to most businesses today (at least in the US).
If you don't see the huge potential here for mischief, I hope you don't spend time advising anyone.
>> Why would they spy on their users?
Information is very valuable. It is the most valuable asset. With it there is practically nothing you can't get. You just need the right info from the right places at the right time.
Anything Google could do, Microsoft could do but at a higher level and earlier. Anything that reaches Google software, goes through Microsoft software first (if you use Windows/Vista/etc).
>> Arent people already buying their OS? Arent they setting record profits without doing spying?
>> Why would a company that makes billions of dollars care that could purchase entires countries care about movie studios?
You obviously have little imagination over the value of information.
And on a less threatening note, Google just spoke about what a large percentage of DMCA takedown notices would be illegal.
Ever wonder why jails, police, judges, receipts, security systems, etc exist? Do you need reminder of how many white collar crimes exist? Are you aware of how many large public corporations lie or purposely deceive?
Even the Bible (words of wisdom to many) recognizes that the love of money is the root of all evil. Now if the public corporation system isn't set up, to a large degree, because of people's love of money, I don't know why it is. In such a system, expect lots of abuse. The lack of trust is present all over the business world. The lack of trust of others' judgment is very common.
Everything is subject to interpretation. What Bill Gates calls fair or just has been at odd with the public court system for years.
So the question becomes, do you trust Microsoft, that very powerful company, to hold the keys to everything you do through a computer, or do you trust yourself?
Who has your best interest in mind, you or Microsoft?
If someone was going to cheat you out of something, would you prefer it be yourself or Microsoft?
And, personally, I don't like to add, if I can easily avoid it, to Microsoft's powerful position through all the things they can harvest from my computer interactions.
Ken, I love the images you use in your mumbles and blatherings. Big Brother Inside! :D
Good job puncturing the Microsoft apologist party line. Can they look at themselves? Can they keep straight faces when they say these things?
Shameless plug: I highlighted Ken's article and another one by Hung Chao-Kuei in the LT blog, If It Scares Microsoft, It's Good For Everyone Else. Mr. Hung has written a number of excellent and wise advocacy pieces, and is worth bookmarking.
--
Carla Schroder
fan of Ken and freelance rabble rouser
Baffles me why anyone would want to put up with DRM. Its rather like finding a burglar in your house and offering him a cup of tea and use of your car to take away the stolen goods. DRM is so obviously only their to benefit the vendor, not the user. I might be selfish, but I could'nt give a rats a*se about the vendor. When I pay a vendor for a product, I want that product to serve me and meet my requirements. I personally dont want DRM - it does not benefit me, quite the opposite - it is a major inconvenince. Why pay the vendor to inconvenience me? We pay our governments to inconvenience us, but we have no choice in that regard. Why do it when you have? When WIndows was all there was, if you wanted to use a computer, you had no choice but to do Gates' will. Now you have a choice - you can tell Gates' to shove it, and avoid the DRM (and the purchase price too). Its a win-win situation.
One is only a victim until they discover they have a choice Peter. After that, the personal descriptors are much less kind. "Victim" seems almost gentle.
Allow me helios.
"One is only a victim until they discover they have a choice"
Once a person suffers the crash and ultimate destruction of their system via viruses or shoddy code and then knowing they have a choice, they insist of returning to Windows, they indeed do cease to be a victim. Let's try some of those "personal descriptors" out.
Moby Thesaurus words for "moron":
ament, born fool, clot, congenital idiot, cretin, defective,
dullard, dullhead, dumbbell, dummkopf, dummy, golem, half-wit,
idiot, ignoramus, imbecile, juggins, mongoloid idiot, natural,
natural idiot, natural-born fool, simp, simpleton, stupid, zany
@ Brent Rose
I would almost be willing to wager that the person who left such unbelievably offensive comments on http://linuxlock.blogspot.com/2008/09/wasted-on-idiot.html is the same person that made the comments you speak of. If not, they are closely related.
Just a wild a** guess.
h
(apologies in advance if this posts double)
Well, Anonymous the (un)original hasn't exactly won my confidence. The whole argument seems to be based on the assumption that all GNU/Linux users are needlessly terrified of DRM. It follows that because we are accused of being paranoid, that our concerns are null and void.
Ain't the case, Anonymous/Chuck (Can I call you Chuck?) To begin with, let's consider something. I don't implicitly trust everyone to be honest. Being sane requires a healthy amount of suspicion. If we lived in a world where everyone was honest and *never* made mistakes, then holding even the slightest bit of suspicion would be insane. We do not live in such a world, and neither you nor I are naive enough to think that we do.
I'm not overly suspicious either, despite your implications. If I come home and a UPS package is on the doorstep, I don't automatically assume it to be a bomb. Unless I'm not expecting a package or the sender is someone I do not know, and even then I'm apt to think it's more a mistake than a bomb. I don't think the guy that I see every day walking his dog is going to break into my home. And since he hasn't shown any interest in my house, I've no reason to suspect him of such. It would be reasonable to suspect him if I had found him in my living room one night uninvited, kind of like Microsoft and Sony installing software despite being explicitly denied permission.
That's where the trouble with DRM comes. What I do with my things are my business. I have a car; I use it to get back and forth. I could possibly use it to run down nuns and orphans, but I am given the benefit of the doubt by the manufacturer. They trust me to drive responsibly, and they trust the law to handle the situation if I do not. They don't take it upon themselves to track my driving habits and shut the car down if they decide I am speeding or that I might not be authorized to drive the car. After all, what if I had to get to the emergency room? Or what if I loaned out my car? They know it's not *their* call to make.
DRM is not like this. DRM means they (which is MS and any company that pays MS a "licensing fee") can decide if and when you can use your computer and who (including you) has the right to access to your data. Their decision to do so could be malevolent, such as spying on what data you make or access and selling usage information to third parties. It could also be mistaken, such as the customers that purchased Vista only to have it shut itself down when it decided that it *might* be a stolen copy. Or it could be mere neglect and incompetence, such as the Wal-Mart media fiasco above. By using DRM that is implicitly trusted by the operating system (rather than by you), you are in fact allowing whatever access Microsoft is willing to grant to those companies that have paid Microsoft enough to be trusted.
You aren't just opening the door for potential malevolence, but just as important, you are giving a greater degree of control of your computer and your data to their ineptitude and neglect. They have more control than you because while they CAN lock you out, you are not given the option of locking THEM out.
Good fences make good neighbors, Anonymous/Chuck. I don't fear some evil monopoly nearly as much as I fear the consequences of trusting just anyone off the street without reserve.
With that said, it's interesting that as soon as a GNU/Linux blogger makes any criticism whatsoever of Windows, the MS trolls bravely step up to the plate to post an anonymous comment that is barely legible and unfathomably illogical.
I can understand that you have a favorite operating system, but why all the hostility? Is Windows really so bad off that it needs to be defended--especially from the logical conclusion of its "features?"
Regarding the intrusion of DRM:
I downloaded the Windows 7 beta to try out, including playing proper (DRM protected) DVD's. The DRM scheme did give problems, although there were workarounds to most, although not all, of them.
My main issue was that in most countries (including my own) there are no laws that parallel the DMCA, and therefore there is no legal basis for the DRM. It is simply inflicted on everyone and in some countries may even be illegal (for example the court case on RCP in Australia). Looking at this wider context Microsoft does not appear to have many reservations about pushing the legal boundaries. This may partially explain the large take-up in Linux in countries outside of the US/EU zones, often with Government level backing.
DRM is something Windows users never see or rarly care about, hating DRM is only if you cannot use illegally acquired files that you have "taken".
People dont care that we cannot see the source code for our OS, just as the majority of Linux users use it as a talking point but do not have the skills to understand the OS's source themselves and will probably never study it or even sections of it.
People use what works, by saying Windows is unstable or insecure does not help your case, because Windows users know how wrong you are, its very very easy to secure and its stable like a rock out of the box, you saying its not tells windows users you dont know much about computers !! is that what you want windows users to think about Linux users, that they want us to use Linux but have displayed their inability to make even Windows stable and secure, (and we are supposed to trust you ??)..
Windows users like freedom as well, its our freedome to choose that we love. Not our freedom to use linux, but to use what ever we want too.
People spend lots of money on high quality products, being free is not all that is required, Linux/FOSS does not comprehend this and are stuck in this "free" and "Windows is bad" rut, and after 17 years its got you almost nowhere, which is a real shame (on you).
Who are you to call "shame" on anyone?
In the first place, Linux has gotten "nowhere" due to the lack of marketing and nothing else.
By the way...entire nations are switching to Linux on the desktop. That is hardly "nowhere". Linux is quietly displacing Windows one percentage point at a time, and it's only a matter of time. The Author nailed it here well.
You exemplify the crux of the problem. Windows users don't care because they don't know. Have you read the posts above yours? Have you seen the rock-solid examples of just how bad DRM can be, regardless of platform? We replace Windows with Linux on about 5 machines a week and we do it upon the owners new knowledge of DRM. Once they find out what is on their computers they can't wait to get it off their machines. Some of them want the data gone to because they fear it is "infected".
You are free to use anything you like but to minimize this mess does not serve those who might unfortunately take you at your word.
When you sit at a level 3 tech support station and listen to a 71 year old woman weep because she is locked out of her computer for no good reason *wga) and has been told to purchase a new license or pound sand, then you can tell us how "free" you are. Millions of people have been negatively impacted by the MS DRM scheme and you don't seem to care that on a whim, someone can manipulate YOUR computer. Damn the fact that it hasn't happened YET...the fact that it is in place to happen is enough.
And no, I won't say "Shame On You" for your blindness.
It is unkind to make light other's afflictions.
Andrew Magnus - Austin
its very very easy to secure and its stable like a rock out of the box
I just want to point out that Windows is the only OS I know of where I have to secure the OS, not just the people behind the scenes.
If I had the technical knowledge I would help out but only OSS would allow my help. If I used Windows I'd be stuck protecting holes that could have been blocked as soon as they were found.
DRM is something Windows users never see or rarly care about, hating DRM is only if you cannot use illegally acquired files that you have "taken".
You've obviously never lost the ability to play your legally purchased music or been locked out of your legally licensed Windows install or had a floating license expire on you before a big project. DRM only hurts the honest users. The dishonest users find ways around it.
However, a similar problem exists with GNU licensed software, or haven't you ever tried to distribute GPL V2 code that was linked to CDDL licensed code (i.e. look at the Debian v. Joerg Schilling threads in Debian's mail list and BTS archives to see how easy that is to accomplish). One cannot be peachy while the other is as rotten as a dead skunk on the fourth of August as both negatively impact the freedom of the end user.
Anonymous #1 Wanna drm fail?:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/20/dvd-region-code-blocks-british-prime-minister-from-enjoying-obam/
Oh, don't tell me it's STILL in YOUR portfolio?"
Oh, yeah - and I'm still buying it.
My HOPE is that it will be totally worthless in a few years. That will make me very happy.
If not - if they continue their rapacious ways and manage to drive everyone else out - I'll be unhappy, but maybe I'll make some money.
That's called hedging your bets :-)
@ anonymous
You passed moderation until you attacked other people's religion. If you believe the Bible is a Fairy Tale, that's your right. It's my right to moderate your offensive comment.
And besides, how can you be taken seriously when you either tell outright lies or prove yourself to be completely uniformed? Make sure you read the sub-articles mentioned too...just so you will know what you are talking about in the future.
Your other comments were to attack others personally instead of bolstering your arguments. Anyone who does that cannot stand on the merits of their argument. The news wire is FULL of wrongful shutouts by microsoft for wrong wga reports. You cannot tell me that you didn't know this. Oh I know...they are ALL lies, yeah ok.
If she was using an illegal copy then she should buy a new one or she may have been tricked into using a counterfeit version. How? Why? I dont know or care. I have never heard any legitimate user getting flagged by WGA. Generally people would try to sue the company involved, and since you think this happens so often Lawyers would have already found a way to start a class action lawsuit.
http://blog.taragana.com/index.php/archive/microsoft-sued-over-windows-genuine-advantage-spyware-seeks-class-action-status/
@ yonah
Where in the world are you? I think we really need to meet and visit.
That would be great.
h
You made the MICKEYSOFT trolls angry.
MS Morons.
Good work.
http://slated.org/pwot_bill_gates_interview
Read the whole article and tell me if you really believe BG said any of that, It's pretty obviously a parody. (I do agree, it's what Bill Gates would probably say if someone had a chance to inject him with truth serum though...)
And besides, how can you be taken seriously when you either tell outright lies or prove yourself to be completely uniformed? Make sure you read the sub-articles mentioned too...just so you will know what you are talking about in the future.
I say the same thing about you. Quoting troll articles and posting another troll article doesn't make it true. Quote any articles with verifiable evidence and everyone else would shut up. Lets lay off the business side which is subject to multiple interpretation. Hell make a technical argument that's objective.
Your other comments were to attack others personally instead of bolstering your arguments.
Then you should moderate other comments that were attacking me. But why would you? Keep it stacked to your side. Right. The usual Linux supporter.. good boy.
Anyone who does that cannot stand on the merits of their argument.
Is this a joke? You have yet to provide ANY basis for any of your technical claims and you have the nerve to tell other people to "stand on the merits" of their argument? You have and will continue to fail to provide any hard technical evidence other than empty rhetoric about pseudo-"Freedom".
http://blog.taragana.com/index.php/archive/microsoft-sued-over-windows-genuine-advantage-spyware-seeks-class-action-status/
I fail to see any data to substantiate a claim that WGA has significant false negatives. It helps when you actually read what you link to.
Dude, you can't get away with that. People can read. You said:
" I have never heard any legitimate user getting flagged by WGA. Generally people would try to sue the company involved, and since you think this happens so often Lawyers would have already found a way to start a class action lawsuit."
To which the author replied with a link to disprove your statement, and it appears the article did just that. It didn't say anyone WON the case, but there is obvious evidence that lawyers did find a way to start several class action lawsuits:
http://blog.taragana.com/index.php/archive/microsoft-sued-over-windows-genuine-advantage-spyware-seeks-class-action-status/
He disproved your statement without any doubt here...don't try to rephrase your argument after the fact.
His "technical" statements are simple observations that DRM sucks from his perspective, interjecting empirical data to bolster it. DRM does exist and it has caused tens of thousands of people problems on one level or another. Freedom is indeed an intangible. He values freedom for all it seems, you only value the freedom of those knowing enough to protect it, or so it would appear by what you say. Yea for the wise and screw the masses, right? This guy just wants a level playing field for everyone it would seem. You are free because you know enough to not purchase DRM'ed goods. The huge majority of people have no idea what DRM is or how to look for that ridiculously small icon on the packaging identifying it as such.
I'm not sure I agree with this guy on many points and his style is a bit assertive for my tastes but you are rephrasing your arguments as they are being disproved.
You don't help the other side by doing so. And besides, I don't know how you might have attacked anyone else's religion but going back through the comments, if you did refer to The Bible as a "fairy tale", that takes you out right there. I am a non-Christian and I find that offensive. I don't see where anyone attacked you this deeply. Doing stuff like that indicates you need to lessen the person making the statement, not the statement itself. Not good form. You lose the argument immediately when you do that.
Mark Sidmonton - Garberville CA
Not to put too fine a point on it, the anon poster did say that the article mentioned did not specifically indicate that there were people damaged by DRM. Indeed it did not, however the this author did clearly state that anon should read the sub articles sited for that data which clearly indicates that there have been people adversely affected by DRM. A quick search via google outlines a huge number of complaints and stories about DRM. Didn't bother to read them all obviously but there does seem to be a bit of a concern over this DRM thing.
My thanks to the blogger for bringing this up. I had no idea this DRM thing was on my machine. You can bet by 6 pm tonight it will not be. My computer is my computer. If Microsoft wants to put stuff on there, they need to pay me for lease space. I had been toying with the idea of trying Linux or Mac for some time but for reasons different than this. All this did was hasten the action. Linux costs nothing, I think I will start with that.
helios, I believe it's abundantly clear by now. The anonymous poster is perfectly happy with others having potential control over his computer while you are not. You are just expressing your opinion and warning others of the fact that others may, in one form or another, control their data if deemed "necessary". I don't consider this alarmist at all, as a matter of fact, let me ask the anon poster this.
Can I insert a bit of code into your machine that will dictate the entire thing belongs to me upon the advent of a certain set of circumstances. No I will not tell you what those circumstances are and I may change them to suit my desires without your knowledge, but that's of no consequence...chances are I will never evoke the clause.
I just want it there in the event that I want to possess your computer someday.
Deal?
roflmao @ Deal?
The best points are made from the absurd.
Randy Schell - Rantoul
Post a Comment