Microsoft Introduces Its Own CD Copy-Inhibition Scheme 342
M.C. Hampster writes "MSNBC is carrying a Reuters story about Microsoft's new CD protection technology. At the heart of the technology is the laying of songs "onto a copy-controlled CD in multiple layers, one that would permit normal playback on a stereo and a PC.""
Re:The real question is... (Score:5, Informative)
Dear MSNBC, the software is called the "Windows Media Data Session Toolkit", so it won't play on a PC, it will play on a Windows running PC.
And each time news source talk about a new virus, they say things like "infects other computers through e-mail". It's "infects other Windows running computers through Microsoft Outlook", dammit.
No it wasn't (Score:4, Informative)
XP's anti piracy wasn't cracked. There were a half a dozen volume activation keys that were leaked, those got shut down with XP SP1. And someone reverse engineered the code in setup that validates the CD key - which is NOT the same thing as cracking the anti piracy. All that does is allow someone who already has a stolen CD to come up with a CD key of their own, after about 4 hours of crunching on their computer. Once they activate the computer with that key, the key is worthless to anyone else, since it won't work on another computer.
The ONLY keys that have any worth to pirates are the volume activation keys (since the work on multiple computers), and (as I said above) those keys haven't been cracked. Until someone cracks the algorithm to generate the volume activation keys, it hasn't been really cracked.
And M$ has NEVER EVER EVER said that the anti piracy stuff in XP was uncrackable. They've just said that it was harder than was worth the effort for most people.
You might not be far off... (Score:2, Informative)
Wonder if they're somehow making it WMA based on top of the whole layering thing... crazy old Microsoft.
Re:ailing, eh? (Score:1, Informative)
What is true is that restrictions on use other than those imposed by copyright law do require the acceptance of an agreement (for example, if a web standard required a patented technique licenced only for web use, and the software accordingly had such a licence restriction, presumably a person could either use the software without accepting the licence (and therefore not be able to copy, distribute, perform or modify it) or could accept the licence (and, on pain of prison, not use it for non-web purposes).
My complaint about Microsoft (Score:2, Informative)
It is hard to decide what is stronger in Microsoft: its incredible stupidity as far as any real knowledge or ability is concerned, or the gormless insolence of its behavior. Microsoft will defy the rules of logic long before it can convert me into one of its assistants. As I mentioned before, fatuous clericalism is one of the most effective tools of tyranny. But let me add that I cannot promise not to be angry at it. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me -- as it leads Microsoft -- to borrow money and spend it on programs that turn us into easy prey for clumsy Microsoft clones.
We must expose Microsoft's machinations for what they really are. Only then can a society free of its salacious hatchet jobs blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that it uses the word "flocinauinihilipilification" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. Organizations that are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated. At first, Microsoft just wanted to con us into believing that it is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. Then, it tried to corrupt our youth. Who knows what it'll do next? It's an interesting question, and its examination will help us understand how Microsoft's policies work. Let me start by providing evidence that when Microsoft tells us that the most foolish louts I've ever seen are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive, it somehow fails to mention that anger is contagious. It fails to mention that all it wants is to demonstrate an outright hostility to law enforcement. And it fails to mention that it is reluctant to resolve problems. It always just looks the other way and hopes no one will notice that I'm willing to accept that its worshippers are in league with unbridled kooks who portray meretricious wackos as spoilsports. I'm even willing to accept that it contributes nothing to society. But its hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it.
It is imperative that all of us in this community provide people the wherewithal to stand up and fight for our heritage, traditions, and values. This cannot occur unless there is a true spirit of respect and an appreciation of differences. Throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to announce that we may need to picket, demonstrate, march, or strike to stop Microsoft before it can stretch credulity beyond the breaking point and those who wish to seize control of the power structure. Naturally, Microsoft belongs to the latter category.
I don't want to overstate this point, but if Microsoft gets its way, I might very well lose my temper. Microsoft is too vulgar to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns that I've heard of unambitious things like diabolism and racism. But I've also heard of things like nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of themselves -- ideas which its ignorant, unthinking, pea-brained brain is too small to understand. In closing, all that I ask is that you join me to stop Microsoft and turn Microsoft's sinister drug-induced ravings to our advantage.
That would be impressive... (Score:4, Informative)
As they both only have one laser, operating at the same wavelength. If you want different layers, it'll have to be something like SACD, which has one SACD layer, and one normal CD layer. But SACD players require another laser for this. So unless you want to ban conventional CD-ROMs in favor of only CD-ROM+"DRM laser" players, that's not possible.
Kjella
Re:..will it be better than their last attempt? (Score:1, Informative)
The XP protection is designed to prevent companies from installing 50 copies of XP with the same cd key on the network. Also to prevent Joe Doe letting Susie borrow his copy of XP so she can have the newest OS too.
Making an uncrackable protection scheme is no easy task, you know.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Informative)
I have to say, MP3.com's CDs have the best copy-protection scheme I've yet seen. They include the MP3 files on the CD, and all the tracks are available for download on the internet. Treating your customers well is the best copy protection
If someone likes the music I'm listening to, I can point them to a website where they can get a few of the bands' songs, listen to them on streaming-media radio and buy a $6 CD.
Oh, and part two of the reccommendations: The second best copy-protection mechanism is selling reasonably-priced CDs
they just don't get it (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The real question is... (Score:3, Informative)
You do realise that there was a version of Windows NT for (at least) Alpha-based machines, don't you?
Also, I'm fairly certain that MS's handheld and mobile/cell phone OSes are based on WinCE, and neither of those platforms will be x86-based. No, they're not what most people would mean by "PC", either, but we're talking about what architectures Windows runs on.