ie8 fix
madison

Vista Mythbusters #7: How much DRM is too much?

By | October 10, 2006, 10:49am PDT

Summary: Much of the DRM code in Windows Vista is a straightforward upgrade of the XP infrastructure. But one key chunk of code is brand new. It prevents tampering with the Windows Kernel. Does it also prevent tampering with new hardware and software designed to handle protected digital media?

Myth: Windows Vista is loaded with new forms of digital rights management (DRM) that will make the Vista experience more frustrating than ever.

Reality: A new code-checking subsystem that protects the Windows Vista kernel and signed drivers is arguably a new form of DRM. How well will it perform in the field? We won't know until new hardware to take advantage of these features hits the streets.

Much of the DRM code in Windows Vista is a a straightforward upgrade of the infrastructure introduced in Windows XP and Windows Media Player 10. There's some confusion over whether and how DRM-encrypted music tracks from the new Zune service will interoperate with tracks from older rights-protected services certified with the Plays For Sure logo, even the much-hyped MTV Urge service, created in partnership with Microsoft. But in general, that code is just an evolution of the original Windows Media DRM.

One key chunk of code is brand-new, however. The Software Protection Platform rolls up activation, validation, and tamper-proofing into an integrated subsystem. A key module is Code Integrity verification, which is defined in this first look by Microsoft's Chris Corio:

Code Integrity (CI) protects Windows Vista by verifying that system binaries haven’t been tampered with by malicious code and by ensuring that there are no unsigned drivers running in kernel mode on the system. CI starts as Windows starts up. The boot loader checks the integrity of the kernel, the Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL), and the boot-start drivers. After these binaries have been verified, the system starts and the memory manager calls CI to verify any binaries that are loaded into the kernel’s memory space. The binaries are verified by looking up their signatures in the system catalogs. Aside from the kernel memory space, CI verifies binaries loaded into a protected process and system installed dynamic libraries that implement core cryptographic functions.

You'll also find some good explanations in this PowerPoint presentation from Microsoft Security Evangelist Stephen Lamb.

The stated goal of CI is to protect the operating system from tampering or corruption. But as Lamb's presentation makes clear, it also affects the integrity and digital signature of any kernel-mode drivers. That makes it more difficult for hackers to replace a driver with an "improved" version that enables outputs and removes copy restrictions built into systems that use those drivers.

This post from programmer Scott Dorman connects the dots:

The operating system loader and the kernel now perform code signature checks. On 64-bit x64 platforms, all kernel mode code must be signed and the identify of all kernel mode binaries is verified. The system also audits vents for integrity check failures.

On 32-bit platforms, the administrator is prompted to install unsigned code. Load-time checks are done on all kernel mode binaries, but if unsigned code is allowed to load you won't be able to play protected high-definition multimedia content. [emphasis added]

Symantec has already made up its mind that this feature is a new form of DRM. In a whitepaper entitled "Assessment of Windows Vista Kernel-Mode Security" (PDF), Symantec's Matthew Conover writes:

The CI.DLL is made by the Microsoft’s DRM team to ensure the whole machine is in a trusted state to play DRM-protected content. For that reason, CI.DLL also checks the integrity of user-mode processes that are handling DRM-protected content.

If true, then this really is a form of DRM that has never been a part of Windows before. It's well tested in platforms like cable TV set-top boxes and satellite program decoders, but those single-function devices don't get customized the way a Windows PC does.

Besides being the investigative arm of the Windows Genuine Software program, the Code Integrity check is also going to be crucial to new hardware devices certified by CableLabs and various satellite providers. It's also tied to a new set of hardware-based output restrictions, which I'll get to when that hardware is available for testing.

For the introduction to this series, see Vista Mythbusters #1. For all posts in this series, see this page.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications.

Disclosure

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is a freelance technical journalist and book author. All work that Ed does is on a contractual basis.

Since 1994, Ed has written more than 25 books about Microsoft Windows and Office. Along with various co-authors, Ed is completely responsible for the content of the books he writes. As a key part of his contractual relationship with publishers, he gives them permission to print and distribute the content he writes and to pay him a royalty based on the actual sales of those books. Ed's books written prior to fall 2011 have been distributed by Que Publishing (a division of Pearson Education) and by Microsoft Press. As of November 2011, Ed is a partner in the independent publishing company Fair Trade Digital Exchange, which exclusively publishes his books.

On occasion, Ed accepts consulting assignments. In recent years, he has worked as an expert witness in cases where his experience and knowledge of Microsoft and Microsoft Windows have been useful. In each such case, his compensation is on an hourly basis, and he is hired as a witness, not an advocate.

Ed does not own stock or have any other financial interest in Microsoft or any other software company. He owns 500 shares of stock in EMC Corporation, which was purchased before the company's acquisition of VMware. In addition, he owns 350 shares of stock in Intel Corporation, purchased more than two years ago. All stocks are held in retirement accounts for long-term growth.

Ed does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.

Biography

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. He's served as editor of the U.S. edition of PC Computing and managing editor of PC World; both publications had monthly paid circulation in excess of 1 million during his tenure. He is the author of more than 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, including the recently released Windows 7 Inside Out.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
85
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Vista Mythbusters #7: How much DRM is too much?
beijing2008 14th Sep
VERY GOOD POST. Thank's!! fake watches uk
0 Votes
+ -
False Positives
Harry Bardal 10th Oct 2006
With a high number of false positives showing up under WGA, what
makes us think this will go any better? Does one recommend
collecting media under this week's "Plays for Sure Unless it's on
Zune" initiative. Are we being asked to hope for the best in the face
of forboding precedents?

It would seem that under Vista, opting out of DRM will no longer be
an option.
0 Votes
+ -
Be nice
Yagotta B. Kidding 10th Oct 2006
With a high number of false positives showing up under WGA, what makes us think this will go any better?

To be fair, this avoids a lot of the gotchas that MS has with XP activation, since it doesn't need to look at the video card, hard drive, etc. to fingerprint a system. Of course, if your mobo dies you're SOL.

The whole "all drivers must be signed by MS or the sytem gets locked" thing is not being well-received by the hardware vendors who have previously opted out of MS' (expensive) driver signing program on the grounds that it was costly and otherwise of no benefit. Well, HP has other things to worry about for now.
0 Votes
+ -
... shipped with WHQL signed drivers for years. It is part of the logo program and they are rewarded for doing so. Please tell me which hardware vendor you are refering to that opted out. If it's got the made for Windows logo it has a signed driver.
0 Votes
+ -
are also part of the same program.

It's the new form of what MS was doing to the PC makers who dared to install a dual boot as an option.

No one is able to pay more or be left out if they don't do MS only installs or drivers.
0 Votes
+ -
Apple
zmud 10th Oct 2006
The last Ipod driver I saw wasn't certified. They would count as a major manufacturer wouldn't they?
0 Votes
+ -
You said...
Laff 11th Oct 2006
"and they are rewarded for doing so" Sort of like when the
Republican's got a big donation from Foley so he could continue to
flip through the pages?

Rewarded for doing so.....sort of sounds a lot like payolla to me.

Pagan jim
Wow, that's a big compliment! Thank you very much happy replicawatchesuk
VERY GOOD POST. Thank's!! fake watches uk
0 Votes
+ -
"There's some confusion over whether and how DRM-encrypted music tracks from the new Zune service will interoperate with tracks from older rights-protected services certified with the Plays For Sure logo,"
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
(nt)
Unfortunately, I can't recall the exact source/event, but it was around the launch period of the "Trusted Computing" initiative.
BG himself outlined the scheme then of a kernel structure that would only run approved apps.
Sorry I can't recall details, but someone else will remember.
What I clearly remember was the immediate clamouring of alarm-bells in my brain.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
You're thinking of Palladium
Ed Bott 11th Oct 2006
That was the code name of the original TPM plan.
0 Votes
+ -
Are you talking about Vista or Zune?
WiredGuy 11th Oct 2006
Neither product has shipped yet, but Zune will ship before Vista, right?
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Talking about Zune
Ed Bott 11th Oct 2006
It's due to ship in November, I believe.
0 Votes
+ -
Zune, November 14th debut
WiredGuy 11th Oct 2006
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/28/zune-price-and-date-tk-tkth/

Everybody (that has inside info) is saying that Zune is incompatible with "plays for sure". I would suspect that "plays for sure" will be abandoned for the newer DRM technology.
0 Votes
+ -
I would happily give up being able to play DRM-protected Windows Media format files in exchange for having control over the computer, particularly in control systems where custom drivers are common. But to do that in Vista, according to comments elsewhere, you have to break into the boot sequence with F8 and disable it *every boot*.

That pretty much rules Vista out for safety-critical systems, even in a console role.
0 Votes
+ -
Macs never looked so good!
billsaunders@... 10th Oct 2006
In an industry where we often use PCs to automate CNC lathes and other critical processes, we often write our own drivers. With the advent of XP this posed a minor headache but we didn't have to worry about our machines not operating the code properly unless there was a major conflict within the code itself. Now, Microsoft has gone too far. They may control the OS, but they don't own my PC, my Equipment, or the way I operate my business. I am also sympathetic with Microsoft in combating piracy of software because it cost Microsoft millions of dollars in lost revenue. But, Microsoft has gone too far with the DRM protection and although I honestly haven't looked into whether it will affect the machines now in operation, I know at some point in the future I will have to deal with the all too intrusive Microsoft! After being an avid "Windows" supporter for nearly two decades, the Mac is looking very promising. At least I still will control my machine!
0 Votes
+ -
Are you naive?
Yensi717 10th Oct 2006
I don't think there's a company on the planet with a stronger DRM, "we'll sue and own your ass" company than Apple.
0 Votes
+ -
Don't throw out that PC just yet.
Hrothgar - PCLinuxOS User 10th Oct 2006
Check this http://linuxcnc.org/ Take the money you'd use on Macs and get some training you be worry free and in control.
0 Votes
+ -
Disclaimer
Hrothgar - PCLinuxOS User 10th Oct 2006
The money thing was a blanket statement. I don't know the worker to PC ratios or the program. The CNC program can be tried out using a live cd (based on the unbuntu distro) simply boot from CD then try it out shut down and remove CD and reboot to return to windows.
0 Votes
+ -
I'd go Linux
voska 11th Oct 2006
At least then you'd have all the freedom you need with access to the source code. For your situation Linux looks even better than the MAC.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Only true of 64-bit
Ed Bott 10th Oct 2006
You can use unsigned drivers in 32-bit Vista without any special boot gymnastics. The restrictions are in 64-bit Vista.
0 Votes
+ -
But! can you run in 32bit on 64bit hardware
Hrothgar - PCLinuxOS User 11th Oct 2006
to avoid those kinds of troubles.
0 Votes
+ -
But! Can you run in 32bit on 64bit hardware
Hrothgar - PCLinuxOS User 11th Oct 2006
to avoid those kinds of troubles?
0 Votes
+ -
So use Linux
morleron 11th Oct 2006
So switch your systems to Linux. If you're like me you'll never go back to the world of consumer lock-in, OS instability, DRM, and the World According to Bill(TM). Besides, what the heck are you doing running safety-critical systems on an OS that is notoriously unstable? Please let me know where you work so that I (and anyone else who's frightened by this scenario) can stay far, far, away.

Just my $.02,
Ron
0 Votes
+ -
You just need the proper process.
jrussel21 12th Oct 2006
I think this a great idea - it makes the creator of the drivers more accountable. That was something that was missing in XP and Server 2003. Unsigned/trusted drivers still loaded - and crashed man, many systems.

You have to have a valid embedded Authenticode signature on the custom driver (or I guess you could create a system security catalog which has a hash of the driver in it - but then the catalog has to have a valid Authenticode signature itself, but the catalog hurts performance a bit during boot time I would suspect).

You have add a bit to the process which producses the driver. In order to get a valid you must create a Root certificate (makecert.exe) or get one from Verisign or some other CA. From that root certificate create a code signing certificate. Install the root certificate on the machine and use signtool.exe (Windows SDK) to Authenricode sign the driver. Install the driver. Now you can use whatever custome driver you want. I simplified the process a lot, but that is the basic process.

For full documentation, see:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlogo/drvsign/best_practices.mspx
0 Votes
+ -
"The CI.DLL is made by the Microsoft?s DRM team to ensure the whole machine is in a trusted state to play DRM-protected content."

Who gets to decide what's "trusted"? Is it open for bidding?
0 Votes
+ -
There's the rub
morleron 11th Oct 2006
Aye, there's the rub, only those with deep pockets can afford to get their software certified. This means that the barriers to entry for any small business trying to get started in the Windows-world just got higher, again. Those who pay the money get to name the tune. AFAIK, all SONY would have to do is get their next "rootkit" certified (and, in fairness, probably change it so it can't mess directly with critical files) and away goes more of your control of hardware that you paid to be able to use the way you want to. Anyone who figures that DRM is justified needs to look into what it means to have private property, that is equipment that you paid for, to do with as you will. Allowing an outside entity to have control of what you can do with your porperty is surrendering your freedom to someone else. Is it really so important to be able to watch the latest shlock from Hollywood that you're willing to surrender your freedom to do so?

Just my $.02,
Ron
0 Votes
+ -
Code Integrity unusable for me
Aesculapian 10th Oct 2006
Barring some pretty unlikely levels of arm twisting by Microsoft, my computer will fail to run anything Code Integrity bars, because I have so many unsigned kernel level drivers, and its SO unlikely that all the writers will go to signed ones. I have them from nVidia (who made the chipset on my motherboard), Broadcom (Bluetooth drivers). I have them from Citrix VPN drivers. I have them for assorted hardware, some obsolete (but functioning). Some came from corporate headquarters, and is required for access to business related data (VPN software). The chance of updating all of this is nil. I haven't been hearing that everyone is going to get signed drivers made for all their older hardware.

Vista will have to stay on my demo machine if CI works as advertised.
0 Votes
+ -
Duh.
Hrothgar - PCLinuxOS User 10th Oct 2006
Sell more stay in the black.
"I'm sorry, your joystick drivers are unsigned. You can't play your movie."

I can see it now . . .

This IS going too far, IMHO.
0 Votes
+ -
Only a couple of years left
Hempman 11th Oct 2006
I am a happy XP Pro user, and also a professional video producer. I use several high end video editing systems that are already quite expensive, and part of the installation instructions clearly say to allow the unsigned drivers to be installed to ensure operability of the system.

I can not imagine just how much more expensive the new software will be under VISTA.

It looks like MS is going to lose me and probably a drove of other video develpoers as customers not long after the support for XP Pro goes away.

It also looks like MS has finally kludged things up so far that I will have to immediately start looking into open source platforms for my video work.
0 Votes
+ -
Looks like we...
Sysop1984 11th Oct 2006
are in the same boat, I work in Master Control ...also dependant on Windows based machines but with Vista it looks like the MCR will be a mess. Time to get the Network Unix based.
0 Votes
+ -
Fritz-Fiasco, here we come.
Knorthern Knight 10th Oct 2006
Remember when the WMF exploit hit late 2005, early 2006? There were a few immediate solutions...
1) Delete or rename the affected DLL
2) De-register the affected DLL
3) Apply a 3rd-party patch
MS originally said "screw you, no patch till next Patch Tuesday".

ZERT has issued 3rd-party patches for other recent exploits.

The presence of 3rd-party patches is probably what shamed MS into releasing its own patch before the next Patch Tuesday for WMF and a few other exploits.

Now imagine a world where Fritz Hollings' SSSCA was in effect. People would *NOT* be able to "tamper with the OS". No 3rd-party patches, and you can't even delete/rename/de-register "crucial binaries". Imagine how much havoc zero-day exploits will wreak. And all you can do is wait for next Patch Tuesday and pray you don't get hit.

At least in this world, you'll be able to install linux.
0 Votes
+ -
I have NO MEMORY of SSSCA (or at least not those initials), but as a native and lifelong resident of South Carolina, I know VERY WELL who Fritz Hollings is, and ANY TIME someone can use HIM or something bad/stupid he tried or got passed as an example of something we DON'T want... MUCHO KUDOS!

As for patches, I'm not specifically aware I've DELIBERATELY used any third-party patches, but then I use Symantec products, Webroot and have HP doing automatic updates (I try to leave the "geekiest stuff" to the supposed experts), and they ALL do updates regularly. I'm guessing at least SOME of those updates are, at least at SOME LEVEL, involved with core Windows processes and I'm ALSO guessing this wouldn't work with the new process talked about in this article (a bit over my head, really), UNLESS Microsoft licensed certain OEMs and Software distributors the rights to make certain patches and modifications.

What I'm really wondering, however, is with all the checking and double-checking I just read will be involved on top of all that ALREADY goes on -- and as mentioned in the article, much of it is already well tested with cable boxes, but they aren't customized to death like our PCs are -- just HOW LONG is it going to take the average Vista system to start FREEZING.

I've been doing ALL I CAN to get "Vista Ready," yet the closer the day comes, the more nervous I'm becoming about "going there." I wonder if there will be a way to keep a "dual-boot" system, just in case?

This is starting to sound a bit too much like rocket science using rubber bands to suit me.
Jeff
0 Votes
+ -
Version x.2 Rule
perryroyce@... 11th Oct 2006
Jeff

Follow the X.2 rule. Never load the first version of any software. (Version X.0) Bide your time and wait for the first rash of bug fixes and tweaks. I own a small company (very small) with only six machines. Three of them wouldn't handle Vista and will stay on XP for the rest of their lives. The other three will run Vista well, but I likly wouldn't upgrade them until SP1 comes out. Let the eager beavers find all the bumps and potholes first.
0 Votes
+ -
Dual boot
A-USA-Smith 13th Oct 2006
just purchase a couple of drive enclosures. I run windows. shut it down- unlock the drive pull it and insert Linux. and up and running in minutes.. no more dual boot problems....
0 Votes
+ -
I'm waiting for a law here in the U.S. banning installation of linux on the grounds that it could be used to bypass DRM and therefore must be outlawed.
0 Votes
+ -
Vista
tyronet 11th Oct 2006
The best way forward is dont "upgrade". If your system is not broken why "fix" with something that is going to stop it working as you want it to.
0 Votes
+ -
Look, it's really simple. MS Windows is an operating system. That's it. That's all. It shouldn't do anything beyond enable my computer to run whatever programs I choose to load on it.

If I want to load some trivial device driver that happens to be 'unsigned', I don't want the OS complaining. If I want to download a small software shop's application, which happens to be 'unsigned' because the small business couldn't afford the new MS tax on application development, then I don't want my OS bitching about my decision. It should shut-up and do what I bought it for, no more. It is *not* Micorosft's right to second-guess what I want to run on my system.

Furthermore, these new restrictions go far beyond protecting IP (which, by the way, as an IP creator I certainly support). They interfere with the use of the computer as an information appliance, and *that* crosses the line.

No matter which variant you are examining, application or content control, all DRM is *bad* DRM.

Personally, I will *not* buy into anything which restricts what I can load on my computer, what media I can view, nor what device I can transfer it to for said viewing.

Just my $0.02 USD, your opinion may vary.

Regards,
Jon
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
You write: "If I want to download a small software shop's application, which happens to be 'unsigned'..."

You should have no problem installing that unsigned program. The only restriction is in loading unsigned kernel mode drivers. This policy seems pretty reasonable to me, given that the kernel is the operating system, exactly as you've defined it.

You are free to install and run applications and user mode drivers, signed or not.
0 Votes
+ -
Hi Ed, Thanks...
JonathonDoe 11th Oct 2006
I appreciate the clarification.

However, I remain steadfastly against allowing DRM even so much as a 'toe in the door'.

It is clear to me where this is going. Based on past behavior, and currently stated policy, what you are *allowed* to run on *your* system is (sooner or later) going to be controlled by those who 'know what is better for you' and are restricting your freedoms 'for your own good'.

That is the path we are on, and frankly it is the future abuse of such policies which worries me; not what is currently being done with them.

Do you recall the old joke, 'How do you boil a frog without it jumping out of the pot'? The answer is 'Put it in the cool water and raise the temperature one degree at a time'. That is how our liberties (both civil and electronic) are being eroded; one imperceptible bit at a time.

It is my opinion that we must speak up and act now, clearly indicating our disapproval of *any* DRM before it is too late. Freedoms, once lost, are irretrievable.

Regards,
Jon
0 Votes
+ -
Here, Here
donthetech 11th Oct 2006
Thank you for mentioning where this is all going....The old Palladium project is taking hold...we need to revolt against it!!!TCPA and DRM sucks!!!!
0 Votes
+ -
You make it sound as if the restriction on unsigned kernel mode drivers is the equivalent of Microsoft telling you to to arrange your living room furniture.

Sure, you "own" your computer, so you should be able to do with it what you want -- but you don't own the software, you're only licensing it. That means you don't get to decide every detail of how it operates.

Forget the "DRM" bandwagon for a moment and you'll realize that kernel mode drivers need to stay protected for the good of the computer.

People always complain that Microsoft's products are too insecure; now the complaint is that Microsoft, by helping people secure their machine, is causing everyone to lose all their civil liberties and freedoms, "one bit at a time". Slippery slope, anyone?
0 Votes
+ -
>>>...Sure, you "own" your computer, so you
should be able to do with it what you want -- but
you don't own the software, you're only licensing
it. That means you don't get to decide every
detail of how it operates...

You highlight the one great advantage that Linux
has over Microsoft/Apple. I own my Linux
distribution and I CAN get to decide every detail
of how it operates. I CAN use unsigned kernel
drivers and/or modules. I CAN, if I so choose,
write and use my own or hire someone to write my
own kernel drivers/modules. I need no help from
Linux in securing my machine. Linux is built
from the ground up to be inherently more secure
than either Microsoft or Apple, and I can button
it down as tight as I choose and sandbox any and
all applications and/or processes without
checking with Redmond or anyone.
0 Votes
+ -
Acually...
Graham Fluet 3rd Dec 2006
Mac OS X is based on UNIXbsd, which is designed to run 24/7 on
the internet without being affected.
0 Votes
+ -
boiling frog...
A-USA-Smith 13th Oct 2006
with xp and the registration procedure the pot was starting to get hot.. this is just little more heat.
0 Votes
+ -
Come on over
morleron 11th Oct 2006
Hi Jon,
You're most of the way here; come on over and enter the light of the F/OSS world. It's a place where OSes do what you describe: they enable you to do what you want with your property and they don't prevent you from doing something simply because some software vendor or "content provider" doesn't like it. Make the move to Linux, learn new things, have fun, but, above all, be free.

Just my $.02,
Ron
0 Votes
+ -
Hi Ron, Thanks, but...
JonathonDoe 11th Oct 2006
I run FreeBSD, Linux, and Windows at home. At work I support Solaris, RH Linux, Macintosh, and Windows. Yes, I support Open Source as the best design paradigm I've seen, and I like *free* as much as the next guy. However, I am aware that I am not typical of the general computer user community.

My family and friends, not to mention my fellow employees and our clients whom I support, often run Windows -- and guess who they call for help when WPA or WGA or (insert whatever comes next) blows up their computer? Yup, me.

Who has to explain to them that Microsoft falsely flagged them as a criminal and won't allow them to do their job? Not Bill Gates.

Who will have to explain why that new gizmo they just spent $$$ on isn't working because it's special hardware level drivers aren't 'signed by a trusted authority'? Not Bill Gates.

Microsoft is going to cause a lot of pain with this crud, and it's guys like you and me who have to deal with the end-user's frustration and try to make it all better.

Worse still, I see this as an erosion of our rights. I am escaping it with BSD and Linux... but not everyone can (or will).

Do you remember that old saying (and I am paraphrasing here) about not speaking up when they came for the Jews, then not speaking up when they came for the unionists, and finally not being able to defend yourself when they came for you?

Each tiny, almost imperceptible, theft of our freedoms leads the us down the wrong path both morally and ethically. It is my opinion that we must *all* speak up *now* to make it clear that we will not accept hobbled software and MPAA/RIAA bought laws.

Only if our corrupt government officials (bought and paid for by PAC monies and big-business cartels) feel that their cushy jobs are threatened by high voter turnout spurred via a massive popular protest will they act to mitigate their egregious activities.

Yes, today we can avoid much of this by switching operating systems... but what of tomorrow when the MPAA/RIAA collusive cartels buy a new law that mandates we include it in all other OS as well?

I feel that we *must* speak up now to fend of that potential tomorrow.

Just my $0.02 and, as always, your opinion may vary.

Kind Regards,
Jon
0 Votes
+ -
How much DRM is too much
Protector 11th Oct 2006
ANY!!!!!!!!!

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix