Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Draconian DRM Revealed In Windows 7

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the just-who-did-you-think-owns-your-machine dept.

Windows 1127

TechForensics writes "A few days' testing of Windows 7 has already disclosed some draconian DRM, some of it unrelated to media files. A legitimate copy of Photoshop CS4 stopped functioning after we clobbered a nagging registration screen by replacing a DLL with a hacked version. With regard to media files, the days of capturing an audio program on your PC seem to be over (if the program originated on that PC). The inputs of your sound card are severely degraded in software if the card is also playing an audio program (tested here with Grooveshark). This may be the tip of the iceberg. Being in bed with the RIAA is bad enough, but locking your own files away from you is a tactic so outrageous it may kill the OS for many persons. Many users will not want to experiment with a second sound card or computer just to record from online sources, or boot up under a Linux that supports ntfs-3g just to control their files." Read on for more details of this user's findings.
Re — Photoshop: That Photoshop stopped functioning after we messed with one of its nag DLLs was not so much a surprise, but what was a surprise: Noting that Win7 allows programs like Photoshop to insert themselves stealthily into your firewall exception list. Further, that the OS allows large software vendors to penetrate your machine. Even further, that that permission is responsible for disabling of a program based on a modified DLL. And then finding that the OS even after reboot has locked you out of your own Local Settings folder; has denied you permission to move or delete the modified DLL; and refuses to allow the replacement of the Local Settings folder after it is unlocked with Unlocker to move it to the Desktop for examination (where it also denies you entry to your own folder). Setting permissions to 'allow everyone' was disabled!

Re — media: Under XP you could select 'Stereo Mix' or similar under audio recording inputs and nicely capture any program then playing. No longer.

cancel ×

1127 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitution (5, Insightful)

Quebec (35169) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881197)

For the sake of civil liberties, culture and sanity and as weird as it may seems I am not joking. Laws are made by the people for the people and some disconnected tenants of some ivory towers need to be reminded of it.

...as a constitutional amendment (1)

Quebec (35169) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881219)

My cut&pasted title got truncated and it looks awful now.

Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (4, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881243)

Repealing the DRM clause of the DMCA would suffice.

Irrelevant (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26881265)

No one here on slashdot uses windows. It's all *nix. Thanks and have a nice day troglodytes.

Re:Irrelevant (-1, Flamebait)

DarkNinja75 (990459) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881499)

I use Windows. The reason being that I don't want to spend my time learning how to use an OS; I just want it to work. My version of Vista has yet to crash and I have no complaints.

Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (3, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881279)

Can we just go ahead and admit that the broken windows [wikipedia.org] economy doesn't work.

Seriously, I don't think that it will take long for this to make Windows 7 as popular as Vista is. All we need to do is tell people that Kubuntu is Windows 7 [zdnet.com] and everything will be fine.

I jest of course. We really should tell them that the one that works is Linux, and the one that looks like it but doesn't work is Windows 7. I'm truly perplexed at the pace with which this one company tries to put itself in the red. There isn't much to say that doesn't come out as MS bashing when I hear this. Lets just throw it away and pretend it doesn't exist... quickly.

Virtual machine (4, Interesting)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881437)

Given the firewall issue and the sound card degradation it seems like windows 7 is begging to be run inside a Linux virtual machine so it can't get so cozy with the hardware.

Of course I have reason to believe they are already two steps ahed of me on that. When I run windows XP pro inside virtual box (host is Mac) then when I plug in my windows media device in the USB, windows media player only sees it as a USB disk not as a windows media device.

So i suspect that windows only sees those DRM devices if it can have direct hardware access. Presumably this is to prevent someone from making a software windows media device emulator.

Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (3, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881563)

What do you mean?

This is a total "make-work" operating system, designed to get the economy going.

You need to:
-buy another FireWall program to block apps going through Windows built-in FireWall
-buy a program to enable to you access the files that the Windows GUI is preventing you from accessing
-buy a program to route audio to a file (like what WireTap Studio does on Mac OS X)

I am surprised, because I really didn't think MS could/would go further with their DRM lockdown than totally giving in to the big media labels (both audio and video). But I guess, this is just 4 more years of ideas from the labels, with some added input by the big software publishers...

Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (4, Insightful)

east coast (590680) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881307)

It's not like politicians have really cared that much about what the constitution has had to say for the past few decades anyway.

Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (5, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881423)

For the sake of civil liberties, culture and sanity and as weird as it may seems I am not joking. Laws are made by the people for the people and some disconnected tenants of some ivory towers need to be reminded of it.

The Constitution doesn't regulate transactions between private parties. It regulates the powers granted to the Government. If you don't like the DRM in Windows 7/Vista/XP/whatever then vote with your feet and wallet. It's not like there aren't alternatives available.

You want to amend a document that's only been changed 27 times in ~200 years over computer software? Just think about what you are advocating for a minute.

Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (3, Insightful)

themassiah (80330) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881569)

It certainly made it illegal for two parties to sell liquor to one-another in the early 1920's. That's a private-party transaction if I've seen one.

Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (1)

josmith42 (1443813) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881635)

The Constitution doesn't regulate transactions between private parties.

If one of the parties is a convicted monopolist, the government does get involved.

Uh.. there's no link in the post ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26881449)

How are you all commenting on an article that has no link? How is it that one here has RTFA and yet everyone has an opinion?

Oh, right.. this is Slashdot.

Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881581)

Why? Just kill DMCA and at the very least roll copyright back to its original duration of 17 years.

Dear Microsoft, (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26881205)

Even we can't defend you any more. If it happens in our computers, we're going to record it.

Fuck you.

Love,
All of us.

Here's your sign... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26881227)

Re - Photoshop: That Photoshop stopped functioning after we messed with one of its nag DLLs was not so much a surprise, but what was a surprise: Noting that Win7 allows programs like Photoshop to insert themselves stealthily into your firewall exception list. Further, that the OS allows large software vendors to penetrate your machine. Even further, that that permission is responsible for disabling of a program based on a modified DLL. And then finding that the OS even after reboot has locked you out of your own Local Settings folder; has denied you permission to move or delete the modified DLL; and refuses to allow the replacement of the Local Settings folder after it is unlocked with Unlocker to move it to the Desktop for examination (where it also denies you entry to your own folder). Setting permissions to 'allow everyone' was disabled!

Dude, you should seriously consider an upgrade to OS X.

Re:Here's your sign... (1)

Dupple (1016592) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881373)

You should really consider reading this. It cracks me up and I have use the dreadful stuff every day

http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/

oh please (4, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881229)

i stopped reading right here "replacing a DLL with a hacked version"

so your application stopped working after you fucked with the dll's, and it's microsoft's fault?

Yes, and no. (3, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881269)

It seems that the problem was that Windows was cooperating with the app vendor to lock out such hacking attempts.

Who owns your computer? You or the ISV's?

Re:Yes, and no. (0, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881323)

i'm not seeing how MS has done you wrong. use the app as licensed. this is like criminals whining about people putting better locks on their houses.

Re:Yes, and no. (4, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881369)

i'm not seeing how MS has done you wrong. use the app as licensed. this is like criminals whining about people putting better locks on their houses.

No, this is like me buying a bicycle from you, and you putting proprietary locks on the axles to prevent me from switching them w/o your permission.

Re:Yes, and no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26881505)

Yes, and they only did it after 10+ years of punks finding bikes on the street and stealing the spokes.

Re:Yes, and no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26881391)

i'm not seeing how MS has done you wrong. use the app as licensed. this is like criminals whining about people putting better locks on their houses.

This more like the house builder leaving his own lock on the house after you buy it, and saying, "We only lock criminals out. Or anyone our buddy says is a criminal."

Re:Yes, and no. (2, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881427)

i'm not seeing how MS has done you wrong. use the app as licensed. this is like criminals whining about people putting better locks on their houses.

I admit I do not fully understand what's going on here, but doesn't the description also imply that it'd be harder to corrupt Windows? I mean, if it's punting apps because of hacked .DLLs, isn't that potentially a good thing? Even a social engineering 'hack' would have trouble with that.

Re:Yes, and no. (2, Informative)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881607)

Indeed, it is a good thing.

OS X has done this for some classes of files since Leopard came out, though the implementation is transparent to (most) users.

If you go in and mess around with a .plist you aren't "supposed" to -- like the launchd plist set, the change will be reverted when you reboot. You can get around that by cryptographically signing the new .plist yourself, using the provided tools and your administrator credentials.

Your analogy is off by just a bit (4, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881435)

This is more like locksmiths complaining about the state putting better locks on their own houses.

Re:Yes, and no. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26881487)

i'm not seeing how MS has done you wrong. use the app as licensed

How about I be allowed to use my own personal property as I see fit? Fucking DRM apologist.

Re:Yes, and no. (5, Insightful)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881515)

Well, it is more like the utility people locking you, as the owner, out of your own circuit breakers. Or the plumber locking the cabinet under your sink after he installed it.

Re:Yes, and no. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26881551)

Microsoft is doing wrong by taking away what you could have already done. What about legitimate usages? While rare, 3rd party security patches are made on rare occasions. There also things like game mods and such. This is about taking away users rights even further for no benefit to the customers. We have a right to complain as customers especially since these things are rarely highlighted unless you are a big geek.

You really can't say when you buy apps, you buy a license. Companies like to only say that when it's convient to them. Buy a cd and they will say license in normal cases but lose the cd and you will have to buy a new cd which is like a product. Of couse this doesn't fit all software as some apps fall more towards license while others fall more towards products.

The main problem is simply that microsoft using it's position to push changes that simple don't benefit the customers and many will have little recourse in it.

Re:Yes, and no. (4, Insightful)

toleraen (831634) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881345)

Who's to say that Microsoft is just protecting installed DLL files, not necessarily per any vendor's request? Locking down the OS to make it more secure and all that stuff people rag on them for. Just sayin.

Re:Yes, and no. (2, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881583)

Who's to say that Microsoft is just protecting installed DLL files, not necessarily per any vendor's request? Locking down the OS to make it more secure and all that stuff people rag on them for. Just sayin.

I don't administer linux so I don't know, but is this how Linux protects its DLL files?

Re:Yes, and no. (0, Troll)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881357)

I refuse to run vista. I happen to own an unopened full 'ultimate' vista sealed copy, as a gift from MS, themselves (long story).

but I won't install it.

and I won't install win7.

these latest o/s's from MS are what I would call 'remote control devices'. and you know WHO is in the control of your computer?

that's right - everyone BUT you.

all new MS os's are packed with DRM by design. who in their right mind would voluntarily install/run such a thing!?

access control this, hardware limit that; hobble the other thing. yeah, sign me up for more of that... (sheesh).

in a way, its good MS is doing this. and you know what I mean, too.

Re:Yes, and no. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26881387)

You own your computer, they own the software (in this instance). You bought a license to run that software on your machine as is.

Don't like it? Don't use it. There are alternatives. Simple.

Re:Yes, and no. (5, Funny)

2.7182 (819680) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881471)

Like what? You talk as if there is some crazy cult of people out there who would write software for FREE and just let other people use it. What planet are you from?

Re:Yes, and no. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26881645)

'owning' and 'being locked out of' are mutually exclusive.

Re:Yes, and no. (2, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881475)

It seems that the problem was that Windows was cooperating with the app vendor to lock out such hacking attempts. Who owns your computer? You or the ISV's?

There are many legitimate reasons a "power user" might want to dink with DLLs, and none of them are Microsoft's business.

And now an analogy that I'm sure someone will object to...

You buy a car. You want to "upgrade" the carb with a custom device. You can't, the car wont run with non-factory mods.

Re:Yes, and no. (1)

Estanislao Martnez (203477) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881537)

How do you know it's not possible to tell the system to run the app with the new DLL?

I think that refusing to run applications that have been tinkered with is a reasonable security measure to protect against malware. I'd be upset if there was no way for power users to change stuff, yes, but I don't think we have the full story here yet.

Re:Yes, and no. (2, Insightful)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881637)

It seems that the problem was that Windows was cooperating with the app vendor to lock out such hacking attempts.

Who owns your computer? You or the ISV's?

More likely these guys don't know what they hell they're doing.

HINT: If you have local admin rights, you completely own the machine.

Re:oh please (1, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881329)

If I change a DLL in a program, what gives my operating system the right to stop the program functioning?

This isn't talking about a DLL that didn't work. This is a working DLL and windows shit-canning the application because it doesn't match what the vendor wants.

Re:oh please (5, Insightful)

iris-n (1276146) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881615)

I'm not trying to defend microsoft, but maybe it's a form of virus protection? You know, virus modifies dlls, OS detects that the dll is not what was installed, and blocks it. No big deal. Sure, it might check if it was the user who modified it, but I don't know if windows is capable of doing this or if microsoft cares.

What I'm saying is, until I have a better proof that this is DRM I will not run around crying "evil microsoft".

That said, I will never install software from them in my pc.

Re:oh please (1)

mikael (484) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881409)

Many install CD's/DVD's see it is their right to replace/upgrade whatever DLL files you may have with their own. This is particularly obvious when you upgrade an AOL application to the latest versions using a foreign language CD. A good many other DLL's were upgraded as well as half thedesktop was now in a different language.

Re:oh please (2, Insightful)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881439)

so your application stopped working after you fucked with the dll's, and it's microsoft's fault?

It should in principle be possible to modify a DLL and have it still work if you know what you're doing. This appears to be a situation where they've ensured no change can be made to a library because it will alter a checksum.

Re:oh please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26881455)

That's OK. Go ahead and read "See Spot Run" again to rebuild your confidence. Then you can give it another try.

Start Reading Again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26881497)

i stopped reading right here "replacing a DLL with a hacked version"

That explains why you missed the part that says this:

"That Photoshop stopped functioning after we messed with one of its nag DLLs was not so much a surprise, but what was a surprise: ..."

Don't worry, I won't ruin the surprise for you.

Aim at the foot (3, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881237)

Let them! It will only help doom Windows. Younglings especially are not going to like when they can't rip their own version of their fav youtube music video, etc. "Web-tops" that don't run Windows are becoming increasingly popular, and those that offer less DRM are going to sell better.

Re:Aim at the foot (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26881355)

I most certainly agree. While it has been an uphill battle for linux to gain acceptance lets not look a gift horse in the mouth. With MS shooting itself in the foot, again, can only be a good thing overall for FOSS. I say we encourage MS when it comes to making their platform that much more unusable.

Re:Aim at the foot (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881527)

Younglings especially are not going to like when they can't rip

They might not like it, but it's not going to push many to switch away from whatever plays GTA4.

Use consoles for major label console games (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881649)

Younglings especially are not going to like when they can't rip

They might not like it, but it's not going to push many to switch away from whatever plays GTA4.

What does Xbox 360 have to do with Windows 7?

Re:Aim at the foot (4, Insightful)

philipgar (595691) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881595)

We all know the only real winners will be Apple, and Windows XP. Linux will likely carry along with it's .8% market share or whatever it has been at for the past 10 years or so. If these allegations are true, and hold in the final version (remember this is BETA software), it could be problematic. However, there could also be good security reasons for these changes (allowing applications to register what dlls they use and not running if they're changed is a good security practice that can prevent third party applications from breaking their software through the insertion of trojans and/or adware). The inability to fix some of the issues is also probably due to the beta nature of Windows 7.

As for the sound issue, do we really know that this is the OS doing it, and not the driver manufacturers not having this feature implemented in their driver yet? Lots of things could be at fault, and to call DRACONIAN DRM on it is a bit hasty.

Phil

Just say no (3, Interesting)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881245)

Linux has gotten "good enough" on PC hardware that I just don't see any reason to even play the game anymore with Microsoft. Time to get off the ride. All of the "windows only" apps that I use seem to work under wine. The rest all have some open equivalent (firefox/thunderbird/openoffice/etc).

*shrug*

windows, meh (5, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881257)

Boy am I glad that I finally took the plunge. Learning about the mac, messing with ubuntu. It took a long, long time to wean myself off but I've finally kicked the habit. I'm just so grateful there are alternatives. Up to recently I felt like a battered wife, hating Windows but still using it. Such a relief. (not trying to troll, just stating how I feel. For those who want to stay on Windows, my condolences.)

Re:windows, meh (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26881517)

Short for /. moderation:
 
Bashing windows = Troll
 
Bashing Mac / *nix = Insightful
 
What the hell?

Looking forward to Windows 8 (1, Funny)

mdmkolbe (944892) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881263)

After Vista drove me to Linux, I was considering giving Windows 7 a chance, but news like this means I'll probably skip it and wait for Windows 8.

I guess I'll have to keep the XP machine I use for games running a little while longer.

Re:Looking forward to Windows 8 (5, Insightful)

hannson (1369413) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881303)

You think Windows 8 will have less DRM?

Re:Looking forward to Windows 8 (1)

blankinthefill (665181) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881451)

I think there is a limit to the amount of DRM the average person is willing to accept in their OS. Up until now, people have been willing to put up with shitty DRM. At some point Microsoft will implement a DRM that not even the average person will put up with, at which point most average people will truly become AWARE of DRM for the first time. At that point... while its anyone's guess as to what happens, I think the fallout will be worse than most of us would tend to expect.

Re:Looking forward to Windows 8 (1)

Slammer64 (1031980) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881493)

That presupposes that Microsoft will still be around to make a Windows 8 if this fiasco is maintained.

Re:Looking forward to Windows 8 (3, Insightful)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881331)

Do you honestly think they will learn from this mistake for Windows 8? They didn't learn much from Vista's mistakes.

Re:Looking forward to Windows 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26881627)

Well, since they will still make money on most computers sold thanks to locking vendors in they will not have to learn. Most of us will pay the tax either way.

Despite the extra cost, I have been seriously considering a Dell Ubuntu laptop next time around.

Re:Looking forward to Windows 8 (1)

NynexNinja (379583) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881411)

PC-DOS 2.1 drove me to Unix -- running Windows XP under virtualbox is a lot faster than running Windows natively, plus its a lot easier to overwrite with a fresh copy when it gets infested with spyware/becomes slow.

Re:Looking forward to Windows 8 (3, Insightful)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881413)

After Vista drove me to Linux, I was considering giving Windows 7 a chance, but news like this means I'll probably skip it and wait for Windows 8.

I guess I'll have to keep the XP machine I use for games running a little while longer.

I used Ubuntu and Gimp wouldn't start after my machine crashed, and my sound card inputs didn't work at all. Of course, that information is useless, just like the random anecdotes and wild conclusions in TFA.

ubuntu live cd to the rescue (2, Interesting)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881271)

maybe this will get more people to switch to linux or at the very least get more people to download the latest Ubuntu 9.x live cd (the one that supports natively supports ntfs).

who gives a fuck (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26881273)

still better than linsux.

I'm not going to give windows 7 a try (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26881297)

It's almost as if Microsoft just "doesnt get it". I wonder if being in Bed with the RIAA is worth the money a second "Vista" is going to cause them to lose.

Re:I'm not going to give windows 7 a try (1)

tenco (773732) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881383)

After 10 years of UNIX I finally was also considering giving Windows 7 a try. But right now I did the "rm windows7-unused-beta.iso" I should have done way much earlier.

Will people care? (4, Interesting)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881359)

That's the question. There are two kinds of DRM:

1) The kind that people do care about, like the Sony Rootkit or Spore's DRM. That's the kind they take notice and take exception to.

2) The kind that people accept and don't really notice, like iTunes DRM.

Microsoft is banking that their new DRM will be 2), as long as they don't do anything overt, like disable users' MP3 collections.

Still, with Linux getting easier to use to the point where regular people are willing to try it, this DRM could be the final nail in the coffin for a lot of Windows users.

Sigh. (4, Insightful)

DarrenBaker (322210) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881375)

Unfortunately, I think you misunderestimate the capacity for not caring by the Public at Large. This will only affect a certain percentage of folks, not enough to make waves, I'm sure.

The "True Name" of Windows 7 (4, Funny)

xjimhb (234034) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881381)

I'm beginning to think ... and hope ... that the "True Name" for Windows 7 is really going to be "Windows Chapter 7." Wouldn't that be nice?

Um... (3, Insightful)

Estanislao Martnez (203477) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881393)

Can somebody post a readable, reasoned summary of this submission?

Um, forget I said "summary." This would need to be longer than the original. Maybe "commentary" is the right word...

Source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26881397)

Am I blind or is there no link? Any source?

Proof? (5, Insightful)

TejWC (758299) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881405)

Not that I don't believe this guy, but can we have some screen shots and some evidence before we scream and yell to the rest of the world?

If indeed Windows 7 does this, I know a lot of people that will get a "rude awakening" from DRM and they will not stand for it.

Re:Proof? (5, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881481)

some evidence before we scream and yell to the rest of the world?

You're new here, aren't you?

FUD? False alarm? (5, Insightful)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881431)

As much as I want to believe this, I'm not so sure that these effects are intentional.

First of all, can anyone duplicate them? Secondly, is a binary really the best way to test this? I would think that one would want to interact with whatever APIs control the recording process. In any case, I think that more investigative work needs to be done.

How in the hell did this make the front page? (5, Insightful)

nobodyman (90587) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881445)

Honestly, this is one of the worst-written front page stories on I've seen on ./ in quite some time. No citation, no proof, nothing. Not even a fucking link to a story? Please.

Win7 might very well be Evil Incarnate. But it's not like your gonna convince anyone with 'journalism' that reads along the line of "yeah this one guy I know says that win7 totally sucks".

Re:How in the hell did this make the front page? (5, Informative)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881473)

One word:

kdawson

Re:How in the hell did this make the front page? (2, Interesting)

HFShadow (530449) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881603)

Look at his last post.... a single unreplied to posting from nanog about the internet going down. No linking to the actual relevant thread on nanog. Unfortunately, people probably will believe this. This is why we have fanboys.

Re:How in the hell did this make the front page? (0, Troll)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881605)

Mod parent up. I'm thinking this story is falsified LOL EVERY1 SWITCH TO LINUX QUICK propaganda.

(Not that there's anything wrong with Linux... it's just that without any citations for this article, you 100%-Linux-All-The-Way-Fuck-Micro$oft guys look just as bad as the big corporations you work so hard to discredit.)

Re:How in the hell did this make the front page? (5, Insightful)

idiotwithastick (1036612) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881613)

Seriously, what sort of conclusions does this "article" even make? They say that it is somehow Window's fault that their software stops working because a DLL is replaced, because you know, somehow programs are supposed to run after you change parts of them. Next thing you know, they'll blame Windows for breaking their graphics card after they deleted their graphics driver. As for programs modifying the firewall, that has been implemented since the Windows XP firewall at least. Run an iTunes install and you'll see all the exceptions that Apple puts into the firewall for their own software. Hell, perhaps we should blame Windows for letting the iTunes installer put Bonjour and Apple Updater and QuickTime on your computer as well? Clearly, they are allowing software vendors to put crapware on your machine!

Re:How in the hell did this make the front page? (1)

theurge14 (820596) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881633)

Ah, I see, it was missing the ZDNet stamp. :)

Why is any of this a surprise? (1)

Monoliath (738369) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881461)

Did any of us honestly expect anything less than this from the next garbage release of windows from Microsoft? As if Vista wasn't a piss poor enough example of how they've completely sold out to the RIAA, MPAA and could give a shit less about the end user experience / integrity of the operating system as a whole. I'm surprised they haven't built in and made public a software back door for your local government agency to spy on all desktop behavior.

Only morons buy / trust / rely on / bother with new Microsoft operating systems. I have been spending, an incredible amount of time teaching my family and friends how to use Linux, and making them aware of how effective and efficient open source software truly is.

People still 'pay money' to take it in the ass from Redmond? You've got to be kidding me...

If you want this kind of absolute fucktarded nonsense to end...stop wasting your money with these twats.

Im outta here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26881463)

That's it, I'm leaving MS forever. I can't take this, any problems I suffer with Linux will be negated by reading the printed copy of this article.

Will really hurt them? (2, Insightful)

iris-n (1276146) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881465)

Ok, it will generate some bad PR from the knowledgeable folks, like Vista. Some will avoid it. Most you notice that the compatibility problems are gone and you can find almost good drivers for almost everything.

What percentage of users are capable of hacking a dll? What percentage of users know what a firewall is, let alone check its configurations?

What can have some implications is the audio recording thing, if it does stop users from downloading videos from youtube. Most teens I know do this. And hell to microsoft if it messes with their sacred youtube, facebook and msn.

What worries me is that large corporations will like these features. "Hmm, a nice locked-down unhackable desktop. Yes, it will keep the network safe."

For me, their behaviour was outrageous enough in the XP times. I've switched to debian and never looked back.

Not just MS. (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881477)

I wish I could just blame them, but the various industry organizations have infiltrated the people at Apple as well. The new Macs with MiniDisplay port can't output DRM encoded files to non-compliant monitors, like many of the monitors and Tvs out there today. This is just the first step folks.

Re:Not just MS. (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881495)

to clarify, I mean DRMed HD shows.

Doesn't make any sense? (2, Insightful)

.Bruce Perens (150539) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881483)

Seriously, what is the article even saying? Not that is even an article to LINK to, but what the hell?

the days of capturing an audio program on your PC seem to be over (if the program originated on that PC).

Hunh?

Does he mean capturing with an audio program? Does he mean that I can't use the same program to capture audio and then use as a player? What does this even mean?

Under XP you could select 'Stereo Mix' or similar under audio recording inputs and nicely capture any program then playing. No longer.

Again, wha??? Does this mean I can't rip a CD? Or that I can't do an audio mix? What hardware is this person using?

Not that slashdot has ever been a paradigm of reporting, but to but one user's incoherent ramblings on the front page as news is just irresponsible. Wait until a semi-reliable tech sight posts something that makes sense, has some screen shots, and has a modicum of citation to back it up. I mean, holy shit.

They going to climb into bed with the MPAA too? (1)

modzero (1267258) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881501)

It's actually worrisome to see such measures. If they go this far then how long will it be until Windows 7 detects video or audio file downloads over bittorrent and throttles or kills the connections? If PC's throttle file sharing applications themselves it takes the burden off of service providers. Win 7 now with MP/RIAA user monitoring!

Why this could be good for Linux (3, Insightful)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881511)

While most casual users won't be bothered by this, the more tech savvy or people in the audio visual fields will be concerned.

While I fully understand the reasoning behind DRM, and while I may even agree with the principle (protecting your work), draconian DRM will send people the other way. It is now 2009. Generations are getting more and more tech savvy and educated. The internet is a huge social network. To not be able to record something and manipulate as you want can send people the other way.

So this is where Linux needs to step up. Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot and Linux has the ability to take a big step forward. If you can record on Linux with no interference and you could be able to watch DVD with no interference on Linux on an out-of-box install, Linux could easily take over. Now we need the big Linux distros (Suse (shut up novell haters), Red Hat, Ubuntu, etc) to get on the software market to distribute versions for Linux. I don't mean it has to be open source, I mean it has to run on Linux. Natively. Without going through this config and that config to change things just to get it to run. Linux is on the right track, and with more and more being handed to it by Microsoft, it needs to get on the ball and make changes. Distros need to agree on where they put config files, on all distros. There would be nothing wrong with one main (but others available) package managers and packaging style. And there are other examples. And all this could be easily obtained.

Short on details... (5, Insightful)

Manip (656104) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881513)

This article is seriously short on details.

So you replaced a DLL and the application stopped working? What DLL? What evidence do you have supporting your theory that it is the OS's fault?

So you can no longer record application's audio? Are you using the same drivers? On my system the sound card has to specifically support such functionality.

Windows 7 might contain tons of scary DRM but unfortunately this article contains no real proof of that. In fact it is so vague that is sounds almost like voodoo.

Did anyone notice that ... (1)

sk999 (846068) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881521)

... the company sponsoring this article is ... Microsoft?

Well, at least, that's the ad I get every time I reload the article.

This is why I switched to Ubuntu (1)

NobleSavage (582615) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881523)

I forced my self to go 100% without Windows. I did this specifically because I had a hunch that after XP things would just get worse in terms of annoying restrictive crap. Vista came out after I made the switch and I was really happy that I had broken free of the MS habit. I put Ubuntu on my laptop and desktop. It took a little time getting used to. Granted I keep a copy of XP in a virtual machine just in for that occasional Windows only program I have to run. But I'm very happy now, some things I like a lot better. It rocks having a full Bash shell just a click away. If Windows diapered I wouldn't miss it one bit. The best part is the freedom of knowing I don't NEED Microsoft.

If you buy Microsoft (1)

kawabago (551139) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881525)

You deserve what you get!

kdawson is an idiot (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26881533)

1. What Photoshop CD4 dll? Does it do this with Vista? Does it do this with XP? Why is this attributed to Windows 7?

2. What sound card and driver? Does it do this with Vista? Does it do this with XP? Why is this attributed to Windows 7?

3. What build of Windows 7? Who is the testor? Why is two paragraphs of incomplete information hitting the front page and it's not an "Idle" post?

kdawson, you are truly an idiot.

You CAN take control of the Local Settings folder! (4, Funny)

ahecht (567934) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881539)

It's not intuitive, but you can get access to ANY folder. You just need to give yourself ownership first.

Open a Windows Explorer window, navigate to the directory, right click on the it, select Properties, go to the resulting Security tab, and click the Advanced button contained there.
Click Edit, select "Administrators" from the list of potential owners, click the Replace owner on subcontainer and objects checkbox, then click the OK button.
After a couple minutes you'll be presented with a Window informing you that you need to close all property dialogs for the ownership changes to be visible. Follow this advice by clicking the OK button in the File Properties window and you should now be back at the Windows Explorer window you originally opened.
Right Click on the directory again and select Properties one additional time. Go to the Security tab, and click the Advanced button again also.
Click the Add.. button in the Permissions tab, type in Administrators as the name (ensure your Local Computer domain is selected), and select Full control from the list of available permissions. Click OK out of the Permission Entry dialog, select Replace all existing inheritable permissions on all descendants... then click OK from the Advanced dialog.
After a couple minutes you should once again be back at the File Properties dialog. Feel free to click OK and close Windows Explorer.

still have stereo mix (1)

wilburx (1147939) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881553)

had to install the vista driver for my sound card. http://i39.tinypic.com/213gr3k.png [tinypic.com]

Re:still have stereo mix (1)

kirbysuperstar (1198939) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881643)

I have stereo mix on my onboard sound card (Realtek HD) and I used it to record a song off the TV just fine. No idea what the hell this "article" is talking about.

taking it too far (0, Troll)

agwis (690872) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881561)

Wow! I really think Microsoft is in for a surprise if they think they can even get away with this. If I'm understanding correctly, Windows 7 is by default assuming it's owner is untrustworthy and at the first hint of DRM violations, will shutdown and lock you out of the supposed violated software. You get all this and get to pay heftily for it too!

I long ago left the MS world and am a very happy GNU/Linux user that has converted my family and most of my friends to Kubuntu. After the initial learning curve just about everyone I switched over couldn't be happier. That being said, I really don't have a problem with Windows and unlike a lot of Linux zealots, I don't bash or put down MS products every chance I can get. Truth be told, I actually really like XP...but I don't need it as there isn't anything it can do that I can't do with GNU/Linux.

Getting to my point now, the average MS user is going to become entirely dissatisfied with Windows 7 and the ridiculous DRM controls they are ever creating and enforcing. I've found it's been easier and easier to convert Windows users and if TFA is accurate, I may just be able to make a living doing this exclusively. So will every other half knowledgeable *nix user too!

We buy software to perform tasks for us and want it to be as pain free as possible. Now MS wants the general public to pay for their software that caters more to the media industry rather than the end user. Worst of all, the real pirates will still easily get around this while generally the average user will be hugely inconvenienced. All I can say is thank you MS...I expect to pick up a lot more business in the future because of this!

This is surprising? (1)

Lockblade (1367083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881591)

Are people really surprised by this? Think about it: IIRC, some laptops were locked out of using their stereo mix and even mic ports a while back using the drivers. You're surprised that Microsoft didn't blink at doing it? I'm surprised they they haven't done it with an XP or Vista patch. The one thing that I'm disappointed by is that even with the title of "Administrator" I don't have the same privilege of deleting my own files as a normal user on Linux. It's not unexpected though... The admin account can't actually do much more than install programs or regedit by default.

If this is true - who will be able to edit media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26881609)

If this is true (where's the link/evidence?):

What does this mean for users who want to edit their own (as in produced by them) video and audio? Perhaps in the future only Mac and Linux users will be able to produce media on their machines. Windows users just won't be allowed.

It's not yours anymore. (2, Informative)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881617)

That's what DRM is - it's software that takes ownership of your computer away from you, for as long as you use that software.

It's like HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey, where you ask to do something core to the basic function of the hardware, and the software denies you access in order to fulfill the wishes of another. "I'm sorry, I can't do that, Dave," is replaced with disabled dialog elements.

Because as long as DRM is active, it really isn't your computer. Try to use it, and for reasons that aren't on a functional basis, it will refuse in favor of the wishes of another. Try to break those protections, and you've broken the law. By running DRM, your computer no longer exists to execute your instructions, but to execute the wishes of the DRM creator. That's what makes it "Digital Rights Management" - your rights and computer are being managed against what might be your intentions.

Ryan Fenton

News Flash! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26881639)

Retard installs hacked DLL and breaks installation. Story at eleven!

Seriously, I like Slashdot better when there is at least some substance to the slant.

Facts? (5, Insightful)

atari2600 (545988) | more than 5 years ago | (#26881641)

- No valid article referenced here

- Posted by kdawson

- I've known several geeks over a very long time taking the effort to differentiate the words cracking and hacking. This joke of a slashdot posting laughs at me.

So an idiot used a pirated DLL to get rid of a nagging screen and somehow this means Windows 7 has draconian DRM. Jesus Christ...I meant to say, fucking idiots. Being in bed with RIAA? What sound card? what drivers? what the fuck?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>