An ancient e-mail message embarrasses Microsoft in a key legal case. A leaked memo has Linux antagonist SCO Group scrambling to explain apparently secret Microsoft connections. A leaked message from RealNetworks CEO Rob Glaser reveals his behind-the-scenes maneuvering to get a stake in Apple Computer’s booming iPod business. Read the analysis at C|Net News.com.
Software makers ready desktop lockdown
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
SCO & MS have connections, no. MS hates linux & SCO is sue linux companies. Really is this news to you?
It seems there is a give and take between what’s easy to access and what’s protected the most. Unprotected documents and information are so much easier to work with than anything with DRM locked on it. There is a need for this stuff, but we need to find a middle ground on how it works, to what extent, and what to put it on.
I think DRM can have give / take, good / bad, but the way it’s portrayed by this article, paticularly the opening paragraph, it sounds like DRM software makers are targetting the dishonest, criminal businesses who have a lot of dirty money. Sure, it’s a great market to make a buck, but who could sleep knowing that these are the kinds of people they’re aiding?
DRM as a technology strikes me as something that is ‘morally neutral’ – it just depends on how it is used.
“All it takes is a quick run through the headlines to see why some software makers might think there’s a market for products that lock down common types of business documents by restricting access to authorized recipients.”
Um, I may be stupid, but doesn’t the operating system already do this? Admittedly, I am not extremely familiar with how Windows handles file permissions, but on a Unix system, I think this would just be an issue of setting up users and groups correctly and putting the proper restrictions on a umask. Am I wrong?
“I think this would just be an issue of setting up users and groups correctly”
BINGO!
UNIX had most of this stuff figured out 30 years ago.
Unfortunately Windows didn’t figure it out before, and now we are facing the results of bad planning.
Indeed, they did… however, Unix is not what I’d recommend to anyone but trained computer professionals. Windows was designed to “bring computing to the masses”, (as was Apple). There are admittedly flaws in Windows, (big ones), and it would be nice if they’d planned better and/or to have them work those flaws out in a timely manner… but to compare it to Unix in any real way is simply folly.
DRM as a technology strikes me as something that is ‘morally neutral’ – it just depends on how it is used.
It should be, but it won’t be. MS will force it into every computer. Then, they will only allow computers with it to operate properly (printing, saving, etc). You won’t be able to buy online or use a lot of stuff due to DRM.
Really, they want DRM for corporate lockdown. Corporations want total control over everything they sell. Individuals lose their rights.
It is scary to thing that a lot of corporate scandals have been unearthed by whistle blowers.. And DRM is designed to get rid of the whistle blower’s evidence.
“BINGO!
UNIX had most of this stuff figured out 30 years ago.”
No, this has nothing to do with file permissions and ACLs. If that were the case, then NTFS permissions in Windows are much more robust than those in a traditional UNIX filesystem anyway.
The point of DRM protected documents is that a document’s creator can grant individuals the ability to perform certain actions (i.e. I can read a document but I cannot print or modify it; I can read an email, but I cannot forward it to somebody else). You could also set a period of time after which those permissions would expire.
This is quite different than what your snide comment refered to.
The point of DRM protected documents is that a document’s creator can grant individuals the ability to perform certain actions (i.e. I can read a document but I cannot print or modify it; I can read an email, but I cannot forward it to somebody else). You could also set a period of time after which those permissions would expire.
I guess what you’re talking aobut is something like PDF files where you can’t copy text or print. I’m not sure whether you can do that with file permission. Plus, if the document is encrypted, then it should be ‘protected’ even if some disgruntled employee somehow manages to get it off the server.
…. , but their mutual enemy is Linux. So M$ uses first SCO …and later if the battle is over, SCO will be dumped.As easy as that.It’s like war. You pick your allies for the same reasons. Of course there is a link between M$ and SCO.:-)
“Every time we present RMS to business decision-makers, they just immediately get it,” Wilson said.
Some business decision makers don’t get it because RMS walks out of the room before they can get it because decision-makers refuse to call it Gnu/DRM.
“I’ve heard some concerns that (RMS) would make it a requirement to upgrade applications, that you could lock down formats in some way so third-party applications wouldn’t be able to open and view them,”
I’m sure RMS is very bitter that he’s being misrepresented like that, or did hell freeze over and RMS has turned to the dark side by working for Microsoft.
For now, however, RMS only works with documents generated by Office 2003
Yes, hell has frozen over. Or maybe Microsoft decided to call Office GNU/Office.
Yes, Windows Server 2003 comes with what is called Windows Rights Management Services. This is what Office 2003 uses for all of the DRM features that were added for controlling rights granted to users. As you suggested, it works in a way similar to what is possible in Acrobat, but it isn’t necessarily limited to a single document type and so could be implemented by any application that uses the service. Anything from a text document to a presentation to an email message could be protected in such a manner.
I could easily see the appeal to corporations for protecting sensitive information from theft or whatever, but it is something that could also lead to abuse and circumvention of legal requirements.
I could easily see the appeal to corporations for protecting sensitive information from theft or whatever, but it is something that could also lead to abuse and circumvention of legal requirements.
Even if it were absolutely impossible to copy from/print/save/or otherwise move the document off the server, if the document was REALLY sensative, something that competitors would pay you a lot of money for, just do a little ALT+Print Screen
Sure, you wouldn’t have the text, but if the content itself is supposed to be so super secret, does it really matter?
“No, this has nothing to do with file permissions and ACLs.”
It has however everything to do with data integrity. They’ve figured out they’d better use hardware for that purpose instead of software [which implementation is different than DVD]. Now the question is how to market that, because the People want something different than their executives want.
“If that were the case, then NTFS permissions in Windows are much more robust than those in a traditional UNIX filesystem anyway.”
Great arguments…
DRM is going to be YACMG (Yet Another Cat & Mouse Game).
MS and company will make “unbreakable” DRM and we’ll break it. It’s been done before and it will be done again. How long did it take for hackers to break CSS on DVDs, Adobe Acrobat’s encryption, and WAP. It’s only a matter of time. Even if DRM became technically unbreakable, one could always ALT+Print Screen it or use a digital camera or something like Darius just said.
Information wants to be free, that’s all there is too it. DRM is going to be a small pain in the ass but it won’t be the end of free and open source software as we know it.
I’m just affred that, it will be illegal to do so, DMCA in The US and infosoc in the EU. And finally software patents that properly will be allow in the EU soon.
Of cource DRM can and will be hacked/broken, but that wont do much good for the FOSS/OSS community, if you have to be a criminal too do so.
I really hope that it won’t come to that.
“Information wants to be free, that’s all there is too it.”
How can information “want to be free?” Or maybe, certain people want information to be free.
… and no one was there to hear it, did it make a sound?
DRM would mean a lot of trees could fall and no one that you don’t want to hear it would never know. To take the speculation that SCO is MS’s legal bull dog: that memo would never have exsisted… the connection would never have been confirmed… and all anyone would have is speculation.
Nice. Anyways… Open source DRM would be interesting – talk about mixing drinks!
btw – information cannot want – it is not a person
Applying DRM to documents isn’t a bright idea… In the end, there will be a need to access the document regardless of it’s DRM and “the boss” won’t care if you can’t print it because of something called “DRM”…
All in all, it is MS fault if they are embarassed by a corp mail… If they played nice and if they where good corp citizens, they wouldn’t have any of such problems… But one forgets how easy it is to forget principals in the sight of money… and power…
It has however everything to do with data integrity. They’ve figured out they’d better use hardware for that purpose instead of software [which implementation is different than DVD]. Now the question is how to market that, because the People want something different than their executives want.
I think your views are a bit misguided here. I mean, part of it is the ‘people vs corporation’ thing, but look on the other side of it …
If you’re running a restaurant and you’ve got a document with your secret recipe (or whatever) on it, that is basically your entire business (trade secret) and you don’t want that kind of thing to get into the hands of your competitor down the street.
I guess my whole point is, DRM can be useful to other people besides your ‘oppressors’, because not ALL information wants to be free. If you don’t agree with me here, then go ahead and post your credit card information here along with your social security number.
“Or maybe, certain people want information to be free.”
And certain people don’t want certain information to be Free. What’s the point of this? The point of that quote, as i see it, is that humanity wants to become enlightened. Want to know things. Especially secrets.
It is the quite the same as making things illegal (ie drugs). It makes it more attractive.
Both are drawn from the philosophy that secret/illegal information/things allow one to futher achieve a enlightenment, improving our daily lives, and humanity as a whole.
“If you’re running a restaurant and you’ve got a document with your secret recipe (or whatever) on it, that is basically your entire business (trade secret) and you don’t want that kind of thing to get into the hands of your competitor down the street.”
Right, and if recipes were public, what would count then? Service, price and location. Now an invention is closed, while people could also achieve the wonderful feeling in a more autonomous way. Personally, i go to a restaurant for the service, not for eating something special. I am a good cooker myself, thanks. More important is that i want to know what i eat. Do you understand that when i say: i want no milk-based product that i don’t want them? Even if the recipe is secret? That’s just an example. Why not give the ingredients + recipe then? Such would improve humanity’s life.
The company behind Tabasco for example are earning millions because of a simple, secret recipe. Which has to imported to the World from the USA; which costs loads of money. Which makes the process inefficient.
“If you don’t agree with me here, then go ahead and post your credit card information here along with your social security number.”
Straw-man. Who says we need DRM to secure CC / SoFi? What we do agree on is that we humans don’t want certain information to be available to everyone however i don’t agree with your 3 examples. I’ve yet to see an implementation of DRM which i’d define as useful.
Credit card is security through obscurity. Simple. I guess we don’t have to argument on that one. Also the reason why i don’t use.
Working with social fiscal numbers is part of my job and i can guarantee you that you as non-government person cannot do anything useful with it. You could use it to identify a person, but you could also use an e-mail address, IM address, realname, house address, postcode (zip), and other information which makes a human unique to the general public. I doubt SoFi is a useful one for that exercise. If one were to apply for a job at a company, one would have to provide the number, but the company cannot get more information with the number.
The SoFi number is right on my ID which i have to show every now and then. The CC number is not public, but that design is flawed, so that doesn’t count to me.
That the company that is pushing TRUSTED computing the hardest is a company with multiple criminal convictions on its record. To me it’s sort of like having Capone in charge of Chicago again…
And certain people don’t want certain information to be Free. What’s the point of this?
Can you not understand or do you not think that some people (especially businesses) don’t have a right to want to keep certain information concealed? Is not ANYTHING worth keeping under lock and key?
I’m not arguing whether current and/or future DRM implementations are the right way of doing things, just challenging the notion that ‘all information wants to be free’ and that the only purpose for a solid DRM implementation is for corporations to oppress the common man.
Your browser’s porn history certainly wants to be free, but I’m guessing you would like to keep that private. If you would like to make it free, though, feel free to paste it here and liberate it.
Somethings should be able to be accessed by 3rd parties for the good of society. Could you imagine some of the stuff that would be hard to police if documents and images were locked down. Crime syndicates and miscreants would have a field day. The door swings both ways in this debate.
“DRM is going to be YACMG (Yet Another Cat & Mouse Game). ”
Any controls of human behaviour are going to be a cat and mouse game, from the very beginning.
“MS and company will make “unbreakable” DRM and we’ll break it. It’s been done before and it will be done again.”
Naybe, but it’s still a b***h trying to get around it.
“How long did it take for hackers to break CSS on DVDs”
I think this is because it was more a region control device than a anti-piracy measure.
“Adobe Acrobat’s encryption, and WAP. It’s only a matter of time.”
Don’t get too cocky. Just because someone does a half-assed job on implimentation, doesn’t mean we can always depend on that being true.
“Even if DRM became technically unbreakable, one could always ALT+Print Screen it or use a digital camera or something like Darius just said.”
And lose something in the process. The analog hole is acceptable because what’s lost is acceptable. When that no longer is true then you have a problem.
“Information wants to be free, that’s all there is too it. DRM is going to be a small pain in the ass but it won’t be the end of free and open source software as we know it.”
Nor does anyone think it will be. And as everone’s pointed out, no “information doesn’t want to be free”, and in fact information takes effort to be “free”. Anyone want to take the time to figure out a unified field theory, will find that the free part is when you publish it. Everything else will take “effort”, and last time I checked, that wasn’t free.
Somethings should be able to be accessed by 3rd parties for the good of society. Could you imagine some of the stuff that would be hard to police if documents and images were locked down. Crime syndicates and miscreants would have a field day. The door swings both ways in this debate.
The problem is that people are just so damn paranoid. Some people thing that having the 10 Commandments in a courthouse means that we’re all gonna be forced to read our Bibles 3 times a day, and other people think that allowing gays to get married would pave the way for legalization of anal sex with hampsters.
So many ‘doomsday’ predictors out there. If you’re worried about corporate control over society, well … you’re a little too late now, because it’s already happened. Think about that the next time you decided to ‘double dip’ on a DVD you purchased two months ago because now the ‘Platinum Edition’ is out.
My major concern with deploying DRM systems is that one exchanges a difficult problem (how to manage ACLs in a corporate environment) with an even harder one, namely how to manage crypto keys. Even harder if you try to bend cryto key management into a “remote ACL” solution.
For most applications of DRM, there is a simpler solution that provides almost the same benefits.
Examples of problem and alternative solution:
– Preventing administrator access -> use OS with more granular access permissions (SE Linux comes to mind). No, it’s not common yet, neither is DRM.
– Ensuring client code is unmodified and trustworthy and uninfected with a virus -> use a live-CD system such as a customised Knoppix disk.
– Preventing snooping of email and verifying sender -> use SMTP/TLS, S-MIME or PGP/GPG.
“Can you not understand or do you not think that some people (especially businesses) don’t have a right to want to keep certain information concealed? Is not ANYTHING worth keeping under lock and key?”
There are already methods to secure such. I don’t see how this one is better. The persons who do have the key can access the “secret” information. Which is a security hazard imo. Like with Cisco routers which have a default username/password. If the question is having the highly secret information hanging on the internet on a DRM computer OR having it not on the internet i’d chose for the latter.
“and that the only purpose for a solid DRM implementation is for corporations to oppress the common man.”
I never said that. You have problems processing information.
“Your browser’s porn history certainly wants to be free, but I’m guessing you would like to keep that private.”
I don’t have one, i don’t like porn, and wouldn’t care when you’d have my browser history whatever is in it.
Any better examples?