What does DRM achieve, and does piracy equal lost sales?

[CostinRaz]

So they had a problem using a hacked version of photoshop and that's proof of Windows 7 DRM. I am totally impressed. Of course it couldn't have to do with the fact that hacking programs from adobe is hard because Adobe has some fierce DRM.

Is that all you have to justify this ridiculous notion that Windows has DRM?

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Costin Moroianu: We weren't really talking about you and your impressions, but about reasons of some people still using Windows XP. DRM is the one of the main valid reasons I've heard of.

There is nothing to justify, new Windows has deep and penetrating DRM. It was demonstrated multiple times already and MS never made that a secret. Read about making a driver for Windows XP and in contrast making one for newer Windows.

 

[CostinRaz]

You've yet to prove that Windows has any real DRM besides media files, where you can use other programs anyway besides the default ones. You want to shout off the rooftops against Microsoft then back it up with some evidence...and evidence being more then some forum posts by people like you: Microsoft haters.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Costin Moroianu: You are yet to read some technical info about it (which you weren't interested in reading so far). I see no point in "proving" such things before you are ready to do your homework. Since you'll say "it's not proven". You can close your eyes to the basic facts as much as you can, but it won't make them go away.

Start here for example:
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/drm_in_windows_1.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista#Digital_rights_management

Anyway, if you want to continue this discussion, let's to do it in the DRM dedicated thread.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

From the last discussion about Windows versions post XP having penetrating DRM. Here is a good reference to start with:

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/drm_in_windows_1.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista#Digital_rights_management

DRM is a common reason for some people sticking with Windows XP, and not using any newer versions. MS is not interested in these users, and the only sensible advice for them in the long term is to switch to the modern DRM free operating system. New Windows is clearly not going to be a good option while they care about the DRM issue, while XP is already approaching EOL and is becoming obsolete.

 

[CostinRaz]

The reason many people stay with XP isn't because of DRM, it's rather because they have not needed to do so since the vast majority of games do run perfectly well on DX9. Even so when looking at the Steam Hardware Survey you notice that XP barely accounts for 7% of the ENTIRE market, that's including Linux and Mac of course.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

I said some people. Reasons can be different. Those who care about DRM have valid reasons to avoid any Windows newer than Windows XP. Those who don't care and stick with XP are doing that out of habit or some non technical reasons. And I don't propose to anyone to do that by the way these days. XP is EOLing soon. It's time to move on, but that move is not the same for different people.

I'd say, many of those who don't care about DRM and privacy already moved to Windows 7/8. And amongst those who stick with XP out of DRM concerns, many can move to Linux as a proper way forward.

 

[CostinRaz]

It's no reason to justify continued support of Windows XP which is too old, we complain about antiquated consoles dragging games back but so does XP and 32 bit.

Linux is one thing, because at least Linux does support the latest technology.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

I agree, it's not a reason to support XP. I said it's a reason some people are hesitant to switch. XP is as good as gone. So, it's time to make choices.

 

[Sirnaq]

Windows 7 doesn't have online drm, this is fact, not an opinin. Windows 8 has online drm, not that it's an issue though because like every drm you can turn it off.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Sirnaq: You meant it has no on-line DRM as a requirement to run something? How do you know what else that DRM can or can't do? Bottom line, they all have deep DRM which is not trivial to extract/remove (if at all possible).

 

[CostinRaz]

I'll throw that question right back at you: How do you know what that DRM can do?

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Costin Moroianu: That's exactly the point. You can't fully know what it can do. So, think yourself, how can you trust it then? DRM can be analyzed only externally, and you never know if you observed all its functions. It's a black box for which you have no source available. Nothing prevents it from being exploited against you. Therefore it's never trustworthy.

 

[Sirnaq]

Sirnaq: You meant it has no on-line DRM as a requirement to run something? How do you know what else that DRM can or can't do? Bottom line, they all have deep DRM which is not trivial to extract/remove (if at all possible).

I meant it has no online drm at all, just like xp.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

It has no restrictions to be on-line to work, yes. But why are you sure it doesn't provide access to your data to whatever shadow 3rd parties when they request such? Or how do you know what else it does?

 

[Sirnaq]

It has no restrictions to be on-line to work, yes. But why are you sure it doesn't provide access to your data to whatever shadow 3rd parties when they request such? Or how do you know what else it does?

Welp providing access to your data to 3rd party organizations goes under spyware/malware label, not drm. And you are really naive if you think xp doesn't have enough holes to provide data to 3rd party. Hell even facebook account strips you from any anonymity and privacy whatsoever. In fact every windows os has problem with wonky permition system. If you really want to be safe use some gnu/linux distro with tor installed, although it's kinda pointless at this point because your data is probably out there.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

DRM is always bordering on malware, sorry to inform you. Known discovered cases of actual malware used for DRM (such as rootkits and the like) only prove the point. DRM is essentially always directed against the user, since DRM by definition is built on the notion of not trusting you (the user). So, you by default shouldn't have any reason to trust it back.

I didn't say XP has no potential holes or the like. I said that later versions added more DRM. This reduces security and makes the system even less trustworthy.

 

[Sirnaq]

That's wrong though. First of malware and spyware are illegal, drm is legal means for of copy protection. Windows 7 does not send anything to microsoft without your permission, you can even check that with sniffing software. Also windows xp has way more severe problems with security than win7, partially because xp has holes that are widely known and it is no longer supported by microsoft and those problems in xp won't be patched.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Latest events demonstrated that neither DRM lobby, nor the government care about what's legal when it comes to spying. DRM lobby actively proposes to officially make deploying malware permissible (it means that they consider that OK, or even actively do that already, which history already demonstrated in the past). While governments engage in massive dragnet surveillance and planting backdoors into security standards. So, do you really want to count on any laws stopping them in such climate? Trusting any DRM is simply out of the question here.

Regular "phoning" to external servers from your system is indeed something you can probably observe. However some request in other direction reaching to the backdoor might never even be apparent or revealed to you. Even the first can be obscured by rootkits.

 

[Sirnaq]

Latest events demonstrated that neither DRM lobby, nor the government care about what's legal when it comes to spying. DRM lobby actively proposes to officially make deploying malware permissible (it means that they consider that OK, or even actively do that already, which history already demonstrated in the past). While governments engage in massive dragnet surveillance and planting backdoors into security standards. So, do you really want to count on any laws stopping them in such climate? Trusting any DRM is simply out of the question here.

Regular "phoning" to external servers from your system is indeed something you can probably observe. However some request in other direction reaching to the backdoor might never even be apparent or revealed to you. Even the first can be obscured by rootkits.

There is no backdoor in your router, if i see some suspicious behavior i just block port, and good luck trying. There is no drm in windows 7 period.Also that article you posted is about usa internal affairs, why should we care about them?There is still something called international law that is abowe any usa internal law.