Microsoft Stretching The Definition Of Critical Patch
from the caveat-patcher dept
Microsoft is known for putting out a prodigious number of security patches each month, which is a result of the high number of vulnerabilities constantly being found in its software. Typically, the company releases all of its patches on one day, so as to give it time to test patches and ease the burden of installation; the downside is that sometimes users have to wait several weeks before a known hole gets fixed. But whether it does a good job at patching or not, at least a patch is typically something that businesses and users want. However, the company is now pushing patches that serve its own purposes, as opposed to that of its users. When a circumvention technique was discovered for its PlaysForSure DRM, the company immediately rushed out a patch, which it labelled as 'critical', not even waiting for Patch Tuesday. Of course, most people wouldn't be inclined to install a patch that prevented them from enjoying their music as they saw fit, but most people wouldn't question Microsoft when it says a patch is critical, either. This isn't the first time that Microsoft seems to be abusing the definition of a security update. In July, it announced that the forthcoming version of Internet Explorer would be pushed upon users as a High Priority security update. Again, it's good for Microsoft that users download the new browser -- which comes with a default MSN searchbox for the first time -- but it doesn't seem like it should be labelled as a security update. If the company insists on using this channel as a way to protect its own interests, as opposed to its users, it could impair its ambitions to improve its standing with respect to security issues.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
MS Monster?
The IE7 update is a much needed patch. Everyone's been clamoring for it. So they push it out, and now people whine that they had it pushed on them.
Microsoft is not a public utility. They are a public company. Protecting their investment in OS development should be a high priority.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
YAY
shocking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IE as critical patch is good
IE7 is better, and a near-forced (but not forced!) upgrade is a Good Thing because of better standards and better security.
I still think microsoft has/had a monopoly. I also think it abused it. But now they're trying to gimp it, mainly because competition is finally knocking on their door but also because the IE devs are honestly trying to fix mistakes and wrong-doings from the past. Microsoft could simply say something along the lines of "hey, we screwed up, try firefox or opera or something..." but they won't. I'll take what I can get and let the free market fix the rest, as it's been doing (Safari and FF alone take nearly 20% of the US market now).
IE7 is going to be the last dominant or largely dominant version of IE anyway. IE7 is ugly and hard to use. People will notice this and go elsewhere. Yes, even Joe Sixpack is going to figure this one out. The free market -no matter how many people out there disagree- will prevail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tiny typo
I assume "...improve it's standing"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Guess what, it also shows that M$ is more concerned about how they are perceived by the Media companies than how they are perceived by their own customers.
That in itself is the news Cowards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I guess companies also don't have the right to protect their own investments and products anymore? That argument against Microsoft is getting pretty tiresome. It's their product they have every right to do what they are doing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Logical
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wow. That is mind blowing. Recommend a competitors product. You should run for President with that kind of innovative thinking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The great pach work OS
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: tiny typo
Just like I assume you meant "...improve its standing"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: IE as critical patch is good
Anyone who studies the benefits of the free market knows that the only monopolies are those given by the government (water department, electricity, public schools, etc).
I'm glad that several of you though have stated that Microsoft is a private company and can do whatever it feels right for its product. If you disagree with them or don't like it, don't use their product.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ummm
I don't think the IE7 patch has been released yet, so not sure if you're just jumping on the bandwagon or what.
As for a choice, MS does offer a tool to block the download. As was said above, if users are going to blindly download these patches, then they get what they deserve. 2 minutes of research and a 1 minute download can stop the IE7 Critical patch from automatically downloading.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IE7 blocker
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=4516A6F7-5D44-482B-9DBD-869B4A9015 9C&displaylang=en
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: MS Monster?
Agreed.
The IE7 update is a much needed patch.
BS. IE7 is new browser software, not a patch, and I resent M$ for misleading people to believe it is something it's not. Apparantly you've bought it hook, line & sinker.
Everyone's been clamoring for it.
*Everyone* is a pretty general statement and a false one at that. Sure, it's anticipated by many but that isn't the same thing so pull your head out of the clouds.
So they push it out, and now people whine that they had it pushed on them.
Of course they whine when something is forced on them you dolt. Nobody asked to be forced to do something - they asked for the option.
Microsoft is not a public utility. They are a public company. Protecting their investment in OS development should be a high priority.
Absolutely they should but they should do so ethically. And the last time M$ did anything based on ethics... well, I can't remember the last time M$ did anything based on ethics... since before their antitrust case perhaps? Who knows. The point is M$ is a large company that uses their corporate and political power to bully and force users, who don't know any better unfortunately, to accept everything they're spoon fed.
I suggest you stop complaining about people complaining when M$ forces people to comply with things they don't want. It's understandable and the fact that it bothers you says your priorities are in the wrong place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RE #14
You: Waah...I need software to run my computer
MS: Here you go little fellah.
You: Waah...it doesn't work they way I want it to.
MS: Well, we wrote it, use it or use something else.
You: Waah...ummm...waaah...Linux is too hard.
MS: Well, it's your choice but quit crying you little brat.
And if you are a Linux user, then what the hell do you care about MS? Oh, that's right...I forgot 98% of Linux users don't have a life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MSN Search
it would take you to a MSN search for it.
The new IE7 has a separate search bar. Sure, it defaults to searching MSN, but Microsoft has a special website set up just to add/remove a few dozen search engines. (You click the search button -> find more providers.)
In other words, the NEW search lets you choose a DIFFERENT engine. The OLD search is the one that forces you to use Microsoft's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: MS Monster?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's not the IE update that's the problem, its the pirority given the DRM "patch". I will never buy anything with that kind of DRM, but they way this was handled stinks. If the "update" is sent out as if it were a security patch, then I care. Microsoft at least owes me accurate information on what they are sending me so I can decide if I want it on my computer.
Also, as a consumer, I care about their priorities. Maybe you are right and I should switch to Linux, but just because I try to continue to give MS my business doesn't mean I can't be concerned. What ever happened to "the customer is always right"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ohhh...the DRM patch
And once again...ALL UPDATES ARE OPTIONAL. Is today your first day on the internet?? First day on MS update??? Sheesh
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BTW
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The great pach work OS
It isn't the large Windows user base that causes security problems. That contributes too, but it is because Windows is closed source. Look at Apache, which I am pretty sure is one of the most popular server apps in the world, it beats it's competitor MS IIS by a long run in popularity and security issues are typically fixed quicker. Look at linux and BSD on servers. Both are typically far more secure than Windows server, and together the two far outnumber Windows Server and both are far more secure. Look at the "Ping of Death" incident. MS and Apple took far longer to patch their OS's than Linux and BSD. The only reason Apple is more secure than Windows is because Apple used BSD code in their software and the very core of their OS is FOSS (darwin) even though most of the OS is not FOSS.
The only reason MS patched this one quickly was because they feel it is far more important to support their allies in the media than their customers. That is the ONLY reason, no excuse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The great pach work OS
"Look at Apache, which I am pretty sure is one of the most popular server apps in the world, it beats it's competitor MS IIS by a long run in popularity and security issues are typically fixed quicker. Look at linux and BSD on servers. Both are typically far more secure than Windows server, and together the two far outnumber Windows Server and both are far more secure"
I guess that since MS is so unpopular it will be out of business soon. Oh wait...the patch was for WinXP client machines...not servers or MS IIS. How are those open source OSs doing vs MS? vs IE?
Kind of sad that everyone complains about MS, and then apparently has MS running on their desktops. Oh, I'm sure the 'company' makes you use it, right?
When a truly better OS comes along (and it will) it will gain popularity and it will unseat MS. However, it won't be free/open source by the time it unseats MS. No open source software will ever be more popular (read: widely distributed, not well-liked) than its pay-to-play counterpart.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RE #14
Most users that have linux are what we call SMARTER. It is faster better and free, not to mention if they have it they probably know programming and have a good paying job. You call this no life?
atleast 50% of the windows users have it for these reasons:
1. porn
2. "myspace"
3. music
You call that a life?
MS just needs to be kept around for morons, if some one is complaining about their wording use linux or mac or just rtfm and shut up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fix it already
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Security Focus
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Are you guys just morons?
There is a little icon that pops up on your systray, you know the one that looks like a little yellow shield with a cross in the center (Yeah, that one, for those of you playin our home game), That's the automatic update button, when you first run windows it asks you how you want the updates installed. Microsoft is NOT FLIPPIN Pushin IE7 on Anybody.
You go into that wizard and tell it YOU want to CHOOSE what updates you want D/L'd and Installed. Have ANY OF YOU ever thought to TRY that? Or, are you all just basic Run of the MIll Users?
I strongly suggest that you all STFU about how MS is "Shoving software" Down everybody's throats.
There is an Old adage goin around it's something like, "RTFM!" Every hear it before? It means, "Read the F***ing Manual"
STFU!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: RE #14
On another note how many versions of the Linux os's be it BSD or any other have been released in the last 5 years hmm say maybe 8-10 how many versions of windows hmm say 1. And in every release there are security advisory’s and changes posted... damn so many holes why use it when in the install instructions it states a update has the real possibility of wiping my machine... when all XP does is patch..
I am not for or against either OS I use both at work and home but don't sit on the high horse and shout how smart you are because you use Linux... it just makes you look the fool..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DRM is not IE7
Also, I understand I don't own the software. If you read the posts, no one ever said anythng about owning software, just about paying for software. I am a paying customer. I have a right to say what I want about the products and services I pay for.
As perviously noted, I own my computer. I do know how to chose which updates I want, and I do choose them. Again, I don't care about IE7. I care about labeling a DRM update as a critical patch. I also care about priorities, where my security can wait a month till the next Tuesday update and the "PlaysforSure" drm gets a 3 day turn around after people find a way to hack it.
Why do you assume I don't know how to do those things and focus on IE7 when my posts clearly focus on the DRM issue? It's about prioriies and it's about giving correct information.
Why do you put words n my mouth instead of reading what I said? You create non issues by throwing up strawmen and then call end-users babies instead of even trying to see our point of view. How much are they paying you?
Since you obviously work for MS, please tell me why you bundle weird things for tablet and other things I don't need into the operating system and make these processes start automatically? Yes, I can edit the registry, but why put that crap there in the first place? And when we question such joys you add, why get mad in stead of explaining it?
The end user has a right to tell you what we want. You don't have to listen, but we are the people who use your software. You may want to hear some of what we say in stead of putting words in our mouths and making fun of us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: MS Monster?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WHAT?
How weird!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Are you guys just morons?
Thank you oh so much. Please tell me which of the updates labeled "hotfix" includes the DRM sO I can remove it, and I promise to STFU. Oh, it's not labeled? I have choice as long as I'm psychic? Thanks!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Warm in here
Just like I assume you meant "...improve its standing") who think this is their English 101 class.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Warm in here
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Definition of a "Critical Update"
FLASHPOINT: A third party creates a tool that invalidates the entire business model for your software (threatens to breach your content license agreements and those agreements of your platform's developers).
PRESS: This tool begins to gain a storm of popular attention due to the fact that many of your high profile developers/clients have begun launching new services into a very speculative and nascent market for commercial product.
RAMIFICATIONS: If your tool is NOT patched (dynamic updatability being something you built into your software for these reasons), then your developers risk losing their content licensees for breech of contract, and their customers begin losing quality of service as more content begins to pull out of the "leaky boat" platform you've created.
RESULT: The same people that believe they are gaining "freedom" with the content they downloaded, will be soon losing the very access they've been appreciating, and no doubt, when it all hits the fan, the lawsuits will be numerous.
"CRITICAL"? Um... Yeah, your damn straight. "Stretched definition"? Not in the slightest eensy teensy bit. If a patch is intended to directly protect the stability of a platform users are subscribing to? Yes, it's pretty much "critical".
No one has to like DRM to understand basic logic. Should people be able to buy DRM free content? Yes. Is cracking DRM the way to get it? Logically, with so much money being poured into it... its like asking America to pull out of Iraq. It should never have happened in the first place, but now that it has, the catch-22 screw-job is all over the details.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: IE as critical patch is good
You really don't seem to get the picture... Yeah sure, just don't use thier product. Ignore the fact that 90% of the world RUNS on it and most of the services and software available to you only run on windows, especially the ones most popular in the business enviroment. Not to mention the problems you can have trying to get differen't operating systems working together.
Also not to mention of course that more than 80% of the world is incapable of installing and running linux..
No it doesn't fit the strict definition of monopoly... But it essentially is one.
On other subjects
And yes, the IE patch SHOULD roll out as a high priority security update. Because for every person out there who uses IE (still 80% of the world I believe) it damn well IS a high priority security patch. For that matter it still is people who don't use it because the holes are still there despite the fact that you don't use it..
I don't terribly mind M$ releasing the DRM update as a critical security patch.. Yes its misleading.. but thats technically what it is. what I do mind is that they manged to patch it in three days when actual security holes can wait till patch Tuesday...
and ONE of these days microsoft is going to realise that just because a service is set the MANUAL doesn't mean its not STARTED. I'm getting tdamn tired of resetting that every time I want to get updates.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another Splash of Sober Perspective
The first and foremost war against DRM is NOT buying DRM content in the first place! If people are BUYING DRM content and then complaining that its got DRM, that's gotta be the stupidest scenario for self-fulfilling disatisfaction (I remember the smart people that made lists of all the CDs containing Sony's nefarious rootkit, so ppl could avoid buying them... awesome!) By buying the stuff... all you're doing is PAYING Microsoft and Apple to employ professional programmers to continue a DRM arms battle with a bunch of hackers working for free. Hm. Tastes kind of like... futility perhaps? "We want it! No, we don't. We want it! No, we don't. Our mouths say NAY, but our wallets say YAY!"
This notion that the simple gnashing and grinding of teeth and "counter-FUD" will foment DRM revolution while people keep *buying* it is a pipedream. For all they know, the critics aren't their customers, while their customers remain happy. Trust me, that's how it occurs for them. This isn't like boycotting gas due to high prices (raise your hand if you can trace the burden of the net effect). With DRM, it's much more simple. Stop fucking buying it. If you're not buying it, keep recommending others do the same. Cheering for hacks? Futility, thy name is FairUse4WM.
On the brighter side, I cannot IMAGINE how Amazon Unboxed will not be a stunning commercial failure. Mark one for the "revolution".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Another Splash of Sober Perspective
Yeah, sure they bought it. But the DRM puts so many restrictions on it its almost pointless. When I buy music (and I do) I want to be able to use it in any way I want. I want to be able to make multiple copies of it and have it at work, at home on all three of my computers so I don't have to go to that specific computer in order to listen to music. I want to be able to copy it to CD or to an mp3 player so I can listen to it on the go.
THIS is what consumers are trying to circumvent.
I also get sick and tired of all the people who keep saying "If you don't like it, DON'T BUY IT." Its F***ing retarded. I dunno about you but I wouldn't BUY the music if I didn't like it. I LIKE the music, I DON'T like being limited in the way I can listen to it because some rich studio exec is worried about someone listening to *gasp* music they didn't pay him for.
And if one more person tells me to go out and listen to alternative bands that sell thier music themselves.. I'm going to find out I'll... I happen to WANT to listen to a particular song you dumba** and I don't believe that some idiot studio exec should be able to tell me how I have to listen to it.
When you buy music, you should be able to do what you want with it. I can respect the music companies desire to make a profit. That is why we have copyright laws. That is why it is illegal to share copyrighted music.
Sooner or later the music studios are going to realize that the only people they are punishing by using DRM are the people who are paying for the music in the first place. Its completely impossible to make a foolproof DRM unless somehow you manage to remove all analog to digital converters from the public domain. Which will never happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Definition of a "Critical Update"
Hmm. There are a few pretty serious holes in your analysis.
By your reasoning, "critical" efforts to stop market changes are more important the giving the customer what they want. Markets change all the time, and trying to prevent the customer from doing what they want is a strategy for failure.
It's already been shown why leaving this tool as is would increase the value of Windows media files -- so much of the rest of your argument doesn't hold much water either.
However, the very biggest problem is that this is a security patch. A security patch people think of as a way of protecting *themselves*. In this case, the security patch is a way of protecting *Microsoft* at the *expense* of the user. That's not a critical security patch at all. It's false advertising and trying to stuff the cat back in the bag.
So, yes, it's a stretch to call this a critical security patch, just as much as it's a BAD BUSINESS DECISION for Microsoft to try to stop this software from working.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No, Sorry, it's WORSE that that, He's worried that you might listen to music you PAID FOR in a way that you DID NOT pay for.
Truly, if they could get pay per listen, they would!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh, Dear
Ok, this is silly. It's like everyone's suddenly become an infant and can't read anything before they buy.
NEWFLASH. DRM doesn't prevent your unlimited usage of the music you buy, it just creates a barrier that making it more difficult to transfer music between formats. The recording companies know this, yet people (usually non-customers) feel compelled to do the following ritual, like a voodoo chicken dance:
1. Insist that DRM restricts their rights to use what they bought, asserting that DRM assumes you're a criminal before you even do anything.
2. Laugh at the RIAA because DRM doesn't actually prevent people from moving their song out of that DRM format if they really wanted to. It just annoys customers who know and feel strongly, that it should be easier.
The more people make this about "removing DRM" and not simply "How do I move my music to...", the more of a problem this will all be. DRM actually works as "prevention" and not "deterrant". This is the simple, unpolitical truth of it.
Off the top of my head, I can think of a number of clear and easy ways to move ANY music (DRM or not) off of my PC and into any format. I remember listening to a cool story read on NPR once. It was a story about shape note singing. I searched the web, and found the story streaming as a Real Audio feed. I thought... "I want that on my iPod so I can play it in my car."
So, what'd I do...? First... I searched for the story in iTunes and online, and couldn't find it anywhere. Then I whipped out a simple cord, and plugged my computer's speaker jack into its microphone jack, and opened up Audacity. Recorded. Saved it out to Mp3. Labelled it (reminds me of cassettes here...) Done.
iTunes is so unrestrictive, I've never had to peel the DRM off of anything I bought, but if I did I know I can always do one of two things... 1.) Burn to a CD and re-rip 2.) Use the optical jack USB jack on my mini-disc player to re-record the audio digitally to mini-disc, and then re-record the song back to my computer.
And of source... 3.) Worst case, I can use the same speaker-to-microphone cable I used to record a stream. --But, people are such sound premadonnas now, anything other than pure digital music purity threatens their enjoyment, so its best avoid analog transfers when possible.
Does the music industry care about my fair use rights? Not really. They'll attempt to crush them if they threaten to bleed over into theft, which is the only catch 22. The day I see a story in the paper where the music industry sues someone for making personal use of music they purchased... is a day that will never come and everyone knows it. Some people think they've already seen it. Sorry. Hasn't happened.
We still see news stories debating whether leaving a trove of music on your iPod when you sell it on eBay is "wrong". We're a long ways off from crazy town, people. Why everyone is turning into Fox Mulder, I can't rightly say.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ain't So
No there isn't.
"By your reasoning, "critical" efforts to stop market changes are more important the giving the customer what they want." - Mike
Listen to yourself. Microsoft created a platform to sell rights protected music. Customers are using that platform to buy and rent music. If a hole is found in that platform, and stays open... the platform will be in breech of its contractual obligations.
Do you disagree? If not... next point...
If by leaving a "hole" open, the "customer" will inevitably begin losing access to music and/or video content, and new songs/videos will not be added by those implementing the platform (Napster, Yahoo, Vongo, Guba, Amazon) this is a threat to the Microsoft customer. This isn't rocket science. It may not be what you wish to believe, but its the God's honest truth.
How is this fairy tale world where Microsoft ignores articles about how their platform has been "broken", when they begin appearing in major trade publications across the country... and then simply smiles and says "It's all good" as the developer complains begin pouring in?
"Markets change all the time, and trying to prevent the customer from doing what they want is a strategy for failure." - Mike
I understand that. You're making the wrong assertions though. Instead of allowing Microsoft to create a platform based on DRM, and then supporting it as a customer by subscribing to platforms that use it... and then... COMPLAINING that the platform isn't fliexible in its inflexibility. Don't subscribe to the platform and whatch it burst into flames and fail. Consumers desperately need to understand that.
"It's already been shown why leaving this tool as is would increase the value of Windows media files -- so much of the rest of your argument doesn't hold much water either." - Mike
No such thing has been "shown". Unfortunately, this is a fairy tale. As I've stated before, and above... broken "No DRM WMA"="Unstable platform". You know this... its basic logic. If Apple did this, its a little more possible, and if the changes to their publishing tool are to be watched, Apple seems like they may well offer it in the future. Unfortunately, Microsoft's platform is based off of the "rental" model.
If you're implication is that "renting" music is MUCH more valuable to consumers if they can keep it... Wow. I can't disagree with you. Problem is... the platform evaporates because suddenly you're SELLING music, and not RENTING it. The whole business model needs to change. --If your assertion is that the business model is junk, then let's always begin and end on that (I can't agree more!), instead of this "look at how removing DRM from your platform makes it more valuable" hogwash.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mapping an Imaginary Future
"However, the very biggest problem is that this is a security patch. A security patch people think of as a way of protecting *themselves*. In this case, the security patch is a way of protecting *Microsoft* at the *expense* of the user." - Mike
Again... an UNSTABLE platform is a problem for the user. Ok, I had to do this. I can to some interesting revelations in this exercise and I want to share.
Play this scenario out, and tell me if its impossible or if it is simply (as I believe) "bloody unlikely"...
a.) Now. Hole is discovered in Microsoft DRM and published to the public.
b.) 2 Weeks later. Microsoft remains silent, to see what will happen if they simply leave the hole unpatched.
c.) 1 Month later, platfrom developers Napster and Yahoo have begun seeing a surge of new users. Some are users that have heard more about the platform due to news about the DRM hole, others are users that simply want to exploit the security hole to download hordes of music for monthly service.
d.) 1 Month 1 week, recording companies begin expressing strong statements regarding the viability of doing business on Microsoft's platform. Given that many customers are finding it better to "subscribe" and strip the DRM off their music, than to "buy" it companies like Yahoo and Napster have seen their "purchase" numbers drop to almost nothing despite new subscribers.
e.) 2 Months, Microsoft is feeling pressure as legal threats begin to appear in press releases and commentary from platform developers. Napster CEO is quoted as saying, "We're having record growth, but our `pay to burn [a CD]`part of the business has gone flat. Much worse than that, our content licensees are close to breech of contract right now. We have at least 2 major labels that have lost faith in us, and have stated that they will be terminating our contract. Bottomline is, we're costing them money."
f.) 2 Months, 1 week. Software developer begin releasing "agregators". Tools that spider platforms like Napster and Yahoo for music and download in bulk. In recent weeks, Napster and Yahoo have begun seeing highly irrattic subscription behavior. Many new sign ups would take advantage of free trial, simply to quit before free trial is up, though usage indicates high use of the service. Other new customers simply stay for 1 month and then cancel, after downloading thousands of songs.
g.) 3 Months. Yahoo, Real Rhapsody, and Napster have both filed lawsuits against Microsoft. Smaller licensees have begun pooling together into class action lawsuit. URGE has seemingly lost steam and remains an unfullfilled promise.
h.) 4 Months. Customers begin noticing that major PlaysForSure vendors are not posting the latest music. In fact, some music has begun disappearing from the service, and unexpectantly, many "purchased" files (for CD burning) that were not immediately stripped of DRM have stopped working entirely. Notice goes out to customers regarding contract disputes between the record companies.
i.) 5 Months. Customers begin organizing a class action lawsuit against Yahoo and Napster. People complain that having their content stop working is unacceptable and that the devices that were purchased to use with the services are useless if the services simply do not have the latest new music that they signed up for. The growing dispute between developers and content providers due to the platform hole has turned into a mainstream joke. Even shows like the Tonight Show and the Conan O'Brien show have begun quipping takes on the name "PlaysForSure".
j.) 5 Months, 2 weeks. Microsoft finally makes a statement regarding the DRM removal tool. "Since the launch of the PlaysForSure platform, we have been pleased with the level of adoption amongst our licensees. However, due to recent market changes, we have decided against updating the platform to circumvent software than removes our rights management. We will continue to support the software platform as originally designed, but we have determined that it is the best interests of all involved to abandon DRM as a technology. To that end, we have begun reducing our rights management staff as we concentrate on..."
k.) 6 Months. iTunes music store is more popular than ever. As consumers discover that the Microsoft platform is in essence whithering on the vine, by-and-large, iTunes has continued to secure its foothold as the defacto standard for online music downloads. In a controversial move, Apple, in recent weeks has released non-protected content from publishers. With its unimaginable clout, Apple has pulled another power move to the chagrin of the recording industry. Having made the tools available many months prior, recent additions mark the first usage of DRM-free content on iTMS. While none of the major labels haved signed up, Independant artists are enjoying a surge of popularity as Apple iTunes affiliates begin highlighting and supporting labels that move to this strategy. This trend is exactly the form of platform pressure the studios did not want to deal with. DRM-free content only plays to Apple's strengths, as the iTunes music store continues to only support iPods.
l.) 7 Months. Legal wrangling continues as Napster/Yahoo/Real lawsuits bring enhanced public scrutiny to the failure of the PlaysForSure platform. Rumors surface that large Mp3 player manufacturers like Creative and San Disk are preparing lawsuits. Due to the shrinking service support for such players, they are experiencing marked instability in their numbers. What was an initial spike in popularity, is now reversing direction, as manufacturers note that their products have lost the viability of their best and only music platform. While Yahoo and Napster still tout their large music libraries, news reports have been unkind in pointing out that they lack new content, and that smaller companies like eMusic continues to gain marketshare, and that the music subscription model is losing hundreds of thousands each month for the companies running them. Compared to the wealth of content flooding into iTunes, their future looks bleak.
m.) Free software began to appear months prior, allowing users to convert "PlaysForSure" WMAs to Mp3s or AACs. Many users begin openly discussing the mass-moving their collections to other environments such as Firefox-based XUL runner SongBird and other open platforms. Assorted tutorials on how to leave the "PlaysForSure" platform show up, and some have started selling conversion tools.
n.) 12 Months. Settlements in amounts of over hundreds of millions of dollars have been awarded to Yahoo, Rhapsody, and Napster in separate cases involving breech of contract with Microsoft. Napster continues to work with Microsoft in hoping for relief. Yahoo however, has changed its model to something similar to eMusic (subscription/limit/mp3). Rhapsody has chosen to suspend operatons of its music store pending further developments. Customers can still use their downloaded songs, but a visit to the store reveals a message that says, "Stay Tuned! Rhapsody will be back!" This message will stay in place for 4 more months, until Real Software is purchased by Apple in early 2008. Consumer class action suits against Microsoft are consolidated by a judge as the billion dollar consumer negligence case moves to trial.
o.) Leaving its DRM hole open is heralded as one of the most deterimental company decisions in history, even beating the worldwind of problems Sony has endured (MiniDisc, CDRootKit, UMD, BlueRay, PS3).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The great pach work OS
"Look at Apache, which I am pretty sure is one of the most popular server apps in the world, it beats it's competitor MS IIS by a long run in popularity and security issues are typically fixed quicker. Look at linux and BSD on servers. Both are typically far more secure than Windows server, and together the two far outnumber Windows Server and both are far more secure"
I guess that since MS is so unpopular it will be out of business soon. Oh wait...the patch was for WinXP client machines...not servers or MS IIS. How are those open source OSs doing vs MS? vs IE?
Kind of sad that everyone complains about MS, and then apparently has MS running on their desktops. Oh, I'm sure the 'company' makes you use it, right?
When a truly better OS comes along (and it will) it will gain popularity and it will unseat MS. However, it won't be free/open source by the time it unseats MS. No open source software will ever be more popular (read: widely distributed, not well-liked) than its pay-to-play counterpart.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The great pach work OS
Eek. Sorry to say, on that note, you couldn't be more wrong. You should define your statement if you wish to be "right". Web server software. Open source web server software. Just one example.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html
Do your research. WWWWIIIIIDDDEEEE distribution, my friend.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Another Splash of Sober Perspective
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't get out much, do you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The point, in case you missed it...
That's three lies for the price of one.
I'm not anti-MS, but I am Anti-DRM and anti-WGA. That's why I have Automatic Updates running in "download but do not install" more.
And that's why I run Win2k and will not "upgrade" to XP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mapping an Imaginary Future
The problem is that they did it in a matter of days (as opposed to weeks or months for browser exploits), and distributed it as a Critical Security Patch (which it isn't), on its own special express lane (as opposed to waiting for Patch Tuesday).
Fixing an exploit that will corrupt your system and wipe your data - weeks.
Fixing an exploit that allows users to enjoy DRM-free content - days
Keeping your friends in the **AA happy - priceless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anyone else notice cleverboy is an idiot?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Half the time, I hear "nuissance" being substituted for the phrase "requirement to know more about my field". Often its used by lazy webmasters that say, "Firefox is a nuisance, why do I need to support that? Everyone should just use IE!" If a platform offers ADVANTAGE and is not simply a crutch for a user that doesn't want to standardize to an equally capable universal platform, then I think there's a good case for giving it the respect and credit it deserves.
Looking at my server error logs, it would seem that Windows is a nuissance to the IT world. What with the armies of zombie machines trying to run IIS exploits on your port 80 24/7. Hello... the devil u know, is still a devil.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The great pach work OS
Eek. Sorry to say, on that note, you couldn't be more wrong. You should define your statement if you wish to be "right". Web server software. Open source web server software. Just one example.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html
Do your research. WWWWIIIIIDDDEEEE distribution, my friend.
Seriously? THAT'S your source?? Netcraft?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!
You, my friend, are living in a bizarro world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: MS Monster?
For many years I didn't trust MS to release reliable patches - with considerable justification because many patches were released without adequate testing.
Microsoft has recently been taking much more care with its fixes, and for the last year or so I have advised clients to apply critical updates automatically on the basis that, on balance, the fixes were likely to be less harmful tnan the vulnerabilities they fixed.
Now, by pushing out IE7 as a critical update without first testing for adverse side effects, they have destroyed that trust and shown themselves once again to be cynical and untrustworthy. A total disgrace - but I don't suppose they will feel ashamed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: IE as critical patch is good
It's just not been properly tested.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IE7 breaks other programs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Are you guys just morons?
Would you trust a drug company to behave like this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: MS Monster?
[ link to this | view in thread ]