Microsoft DRM Locks You Out Of Your Own Documents
from the reason-number-6495884672-why-DRM-sucks dept
In case you haven't been paying attention, there's yet to be a good reason put forth for using DRM that I can remember. We've seen over and over again how DRM seems to interfere with legitimate actions, but does nothing at all to slow down "pirates." Slashdot points to a rather scary situations for those who used Microsoft Office 2003 to DRM certain documents for their own use. Apparently, a screwup on the part of Microsoft (oops) means that many people got locked out of their own documents. Basically, Microsoft let a certificate expire, and that's made life difficult for lots and lots of people. So what good is DRM again?
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
Filed Under: documents, drm, microsoft office
Companies: microsoft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's not a Bug, it's a Feature
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not a Bug, it's a Feature
He asked headquarters what his clients should do and the response was upgrade to Office 2010.
Brilliant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
categorically discounting drm is stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
Name a situation where DRM has stopped something from being pirated.
You can't, because it doesn't exist. DRM has never stopped piracy in any way. It has only caused problems for legitimate users. If you're using DRM to prevent stuff from "being pirated against your own wishes" you've made a mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
Easy.
I used to work in a repair shop. Countless times people brought in PCs with pirated versions of Windows on them that had started nagging them about it. For whatever reason, they took it to us instead of the wanna-be "Hero" who installed it in the first-place.
Needless to say, a valid license later and they were happy.
Sure...it doesn't stop those dead-set on getting something for nothing, but then...it was never meant to. It was meant to stop those folks who came into my shop...the one's who were pirating without really knowing it, and without actual effort to do so on their part.
Ya know, this whole thing called "Casual Piracy"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
Only because the people who are coming into your shop are ignorant. Their are easy cracks and work-arounds to eliminate the nagging. In other words, the DRM does not stop people from using the software for free. The fact that some people are too ignorant to bypass the DRM does not mean the DRM is secure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
Well, the overall question is whether "DRM has never stopped piracy in any way", not whether DRM is absolutely secure. Just because someone is smart enough to bypass DRM illegitimately, doesn't mean that there aren't others out there, the "casual pirates", that are either "too ignorant" to bypass it illegitimately or just simply can't be bothered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
No, I don't know where you got that supposed quote, but Mike's challenge was to "name a situation where DRM has stopped something from being pirated." Big difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
Oops, never mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
It didn't stop piracy. It stopped them. That's it's intent.
That is the point of DRM. Not some fantastical ideal of an un-hackable barrier that you guys seem to need to cling to in order to rail against it.
DRM is created by coders. Developers. People who by nature have an innate understanding that if it can be coded, it can be hacked. They are not blind to this. The payoff is that it does what it was intended to do. Stop the people who would normally *not* be pirating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
Back in the day, people copied movies on VHS tapes and gave them away. Then the industry implemented MacroVision. Yes, you could buy a gimmick that let you still copy protected tapes... but the vast majority of people didn't, unauthorized copies dropped, and sales rose.
Same with door looks. Determined thieves will pick them, break them, or bypass them. But neighbors and others will be delivered from temptation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
Needless to say, a valid license later and they were happy.
DRM - like drug/alcohol prohibition - is a criminal business opportunity. It locks out the technically non-savvy - who then turn to someone else for help.
They may turn to a legitimate dealer like you for relief (but bear in mind the criminal community has already made a profit on the first sale anyway) but then again it will always be cheaper to go to another commercial pirate.
Now you may say that without DRM the rightsholders would lose more because anyone could copy the stuff - and that might be true - but at least in that case the underworld would not be making money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
98% of all PC's sold in the US come with the OS already installed. They also dont come with the recovery disks. This is yet another one of those multiple sales "windows" (pardon the unintentional pun) we see all to often for information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
In other words.....it worked as intended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
Easy.
Except you failed to do so. Windows is still "pirated".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
You can't, because it doesn't exist. DRM has never stopped piracy in any way.
If you look at a particular item of media -- a movie, a song, a TV show, a computer program -- the statement holds true that DRM has not stopped piracy. Once a single copy of, for example, a computer game has been cracked, it's now available to everyone on the Internet who searches hard enough. But what about on a per copy basis? Can't you say that DRM has stopped individuals from copying a computer game? Sure, if they looked hard enough, they could find a cracked version, but that's often more trouble than it's worth, so in that particular case, DRM did stop piracy.
In fact, this is the reason that you can make the case that selling people non-DRM'ed media at a fair price is a viable business model, because if you make it easy for people to buy legitimatelly and add value to that experience, people will pay money in spite of there being pirated copies available somewhere on the Internet.
I just think that the statement "DRM has never stopped piracy in any way" is not literally true and does a disservice to the argument against DRM. It uses the same twisted logic of studies sponsored by the RIAA/MPAA that fail to take into account the possible benefits of piracy. Yes, on the whole it may not stop piracy and (I believe) is a counterproductive business strategy, but all you have to do is find one person who tried to copy a game, couldn't because of some DRM, and then didn't go out and get a cracked version and you've disproved the statement.
To me, saying that "DRM has never stopped piracy in any way" is like saying that speed limits have never stopped speeding in any way. Sure, you can drive on any road in America and see examples of people speeding, but that doesn't mean that speed limits have never stopped any speeding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
Yes, DRM is great at preventing copies that nobody really wants. I'll grant you that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
It's my guess that there are at least three major aspects to whether or not someone will attempt to find an illegitimate copy of something: 1) their interest level 2) their technical ability and 3) their fear of getting caught. So, using your example, someone may really want a copy of something, but may not know even where to start looking or, even if they did, may judge that it's more risk than they want to deal with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
Yeah, but only Two is related to DRM, and once it's broken the 'technical ability' required is near zero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
All three are related to DRM because the person wouldn't need to looked for a cracked version in the first place if there weren't DRM.
and once it's broken the 'technical ability' required is near zero.
I think you're overestimating the technical ability of the average computer user. I'm not talking about the hard core gamer that knows his way around every aspect of their computer. For the statement "DRM has never stopped piracy in any way" to be disproved, all you have to do is find someone that tried to make a copy of a computer program for their friend or relative, found out that it didn't work just by copying the CD, and then said, "Oh well, I guess that didn't work. Sorry."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
I read the statement "DRM has never prevented piracy." and think that if even one copy gets hacked and uploaded, DRM has failed to do its job.
Clearly, you are thinking that if even one user is thwarted by DRM, then it is successful.
I can't help but imagine that most, if not all, execs are pushing for DRM to prevent *even one copy* from being pirated, not from stopping your grandmother from making a copy for her bridge club. I could be wrong though. I base it on the fact that, due to software's digital (and thus, infinite) nature, if even one copy is pirated, then 1 million copies can be made, even by most "average" users. Therefore, one successful hack is just as bad as no DRM at all, right?
You are free to stick to your guns, obviously, but if you think about it objectively, you'll see that DRM has never once successfully prevented piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
No, you can say that DRM stopped some piracy if you can show that DRM stopped some piracy. My point about the statement "DRM has never stopped piracy in any way" is that the "in any way" clause takes us out of the realm of what the net effect is of DRM or the theoretical sales figures without DRM. The statement is disproved by one single example of somebody not bypassing DRM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
The use of finally shows that even if you're right, it is only temporary.
"XM/Sirius satellite radio"
Because it ain't worth the time to hack. I rented a car for a couple of weeks with an XM radio in it. I sounded like crap. Flat, nearly mono. While my MP3 player and FM radio sounded fantastic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
Those vary, but more to the point: is there anything ON those networks that you can't get?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
As far as the XM/Sirius - sorry, but it's been hacked. XM had a problem (not so long ago) with their radios identifiers being spoofed on multiple devices and their system allowed one subscription for all devices with the same identifier. I'm not sure if they have yet defeated this, but I saw it working before the Sirius/XM merger.
Disclaimer - I am a long-time Sirius subscriber that is letting his subscriptions run out this year because it it not worth the cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
A bit of warning, start calling now to cancel, you will be billed, and they will put you into a queue an hour or so long as soon as you mention canceling. I wanted to cancel one of my radios a couple months back, keeping the other two, the experience was so frustrating, that I wound up canceling their services altogether. It took 3 calls, and nearly 3 hours of my time to do so. I think it was easier to get AOL canceled in the late 90's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
http://www.bing.com/search?q=DirectTV+hacks&form=OSDSRC
LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
More of a trade secret than DRM, I would think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
Agreed! It is a well known fact that DRM increases piracy drastically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
Or perhaps you are confused.
I suppose your argument applies to my bank account, too.
So DRM is good because my bank uses it by requiring me to show ID when I take money out...????
Hello!!??? Are you listening, AC???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM locked my video
Videos of interview sessions (shot by us, using our video camera) were DRM-locked and could not be played back on a PC, Mac, etc. Anywhere outside the Archos player.
Vendor and Archos could offer no solution, though Archos acknowledged it was "a known issue". From what I gathered they simply don't plan on fixing it.
Not clear to me if the AVI's (apparently compressed with DivX) had Microsoft in the mix or not... But DRM successfully prevent me from using MY OWN VIDEO, and prevented a sale for Archos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digital Signing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moral outrage anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
*crickets*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
i have 6,495,884,672 other reasons.
at least a few of those would make sense, even to yourself, im sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly how long the rental is varies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are some companies I hesitate or skip buying from because I'm concerned with DRM/Usability issues. There's other products out there - lots of them - sometimes it's hard to make up my mind, so often DRM and such will be a deciding factor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please explain. (For bonus points, don't use an ellipsis as a period in your post.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM
It is much cheaper to just rent stuff. And when it gets obsollete the only thing I have to care is buying a new player :)
I didn't even bother with a bluray and probably never will.
DRM also is the reason I got into linux. Because of all that crap in Vista.
And to be honest I don't miss anything.
I got off the upgrade and maintenance frenzy.
I save almost $2000 dollars a year using free software now.
Why the "#$%$ would I ever want to paid for that stuff again?
The kicker, DRM is just the foot in the door for people who think they can create markets based on invisible lines, yah that worked great for that country that got bankrupt. Virtual goods are the gold for the fool.
Work creates wealth, real work, if you don't sweat you didn't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's just too bad all you're talent is half a world a way these days. If you want to fix it, you need a translator that understands Hindi, a PM, and a few analysts before you can start to fix it. Also, whose decision to offshore was that?
Tell me you at least bought a Ford that features Microsoft Sync® with your bonus, because that would make your father proud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As you probably know, the most important person is my wife, and she drives a Rover. Rover was divested from Ford and acquired by one of my largest India-based outsourcers, Tata. I am not claiming anything... But Dog, I'm just saying that I was real impressed with what they were able to do in bringing Vista to market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
(character map is your friend - assuming you're on windows, no idea what the mac/*nix equivalent is)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
dammit ... that worked fine in the preview honest! Ah well, attempt 2 is html formatting and & reg; (without the space after &): �
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I give up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Documents? Bah! Who wants to be locked out of their car?
Surely, it will be powered by Microsoft® Air(SM)-- which is the code name for the upcoming Vaporware™ Services Stack available on the Azure Cloud Platform.
All this will be delivered on via Microsoft Sync® Services. (Referred to as MSSSS or ironically as "M$$$$")
I can hardly wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The whole setup blows royally for the consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM is to force you to re-puchase content over and over
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM is to force you to re-puchase content over and over
"We need it or no one will buy it"
On the contrary, I will never, not ever, put money into something that I might have to buy again, no matter what form its in.
At least I know I can read a book I buy ten years from now, and that I dont have to buy it again and again. What a stupid idea.
The points on technologically savy people, they arent so rare anymore. It took me a week at the most to learn how to torrent, and Ive probably "stolen" upwards of $8,000 worth of software now. The catch is, I am poor, and never would have bought it in the first place, so is that really stealing?
DRM sucks, I feel bad for all the early adopters and people holding onto old equiptment, pay up or youre screwed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DRM is to force you to re-puchase content over and over
DRM is not to stop piracy per say, it is first and foremost about ideologically protecting old school media business and content control models that favor the status quo, as much as it is to provide 1) some kind of roadblock to avoid easy access to content (similar to a lock on a home or car) and 2) to demonstrate that content industries are at least trying to make use of DRM to demonstrate that they have at least made an attempt to take advantage of the rights they lobbied hard for in the DMCA.
You see, the MPAA/RIAA/AP and all the rest learned something we consumers never have....if you don't fight for your rights, they WILL get extinguished.. And when I say this, I mean specifically the fact that most Americans could give two sh*ts about Fair Use, and they will only care when ACTA is implemented and they start losing Internet access or some other draconian measure (there I said it for Mike ;)) and then recognize they had certain rights (which ACTA would likely trump), but lost them over apathy.
Don't get me wrong, content creators deserved to be compensated and I don't have all the answers. I am not certain the old school media business models were necessarily appropriate or that the possibilities of the Internet could not be a boon for new business models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DRM is to force you to re-puchase content over and over
Rather, I agree with the premise that vastrigthwing put forth that DRM is about controlling distribution on every media format, and perhaps trying to monetize this content in a new media environment (a la licensing fee's). Not to contradict myself, but the point of copyright law is to give this right to the copyright holders. My earlier post speaks to my concern that that there are arguably legal fair uses also legislated to consumers, such as time-shifting, and these blog copyright discourses have not centered around these legal fair uses.
Instead, it has been more in the realm of Ryan's "yea, I stole and it hasn't stopped me, so take that" b*llshit arguments. Please step up the discussion folks, there is a way to reclaim consumer rights without anarchism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow - talk about Lock-In
[ link to this | view in chronology ]