home
products
contribute
download
documentation
forum
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
All posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
General Forums
OffTopic
Vista and content protection (DRM)
Contact us
RSS
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="samuel337" data-source="post: 100276" data-attributes="member: 10347"><p>I'm not defending Microsoft here. Nor am I an anti-Microsoft person. Its just the reality, and unlike what the net world seems to think about Windows Activation, it is not as problematic as it seems. Its not perfect either, but false-positive cases are low. No one out there will write a post every time Windows Activation works; they'll only write when it screws up.</p><p></p><p>And unless its invading my privacy (AFAIK it doesn't rely identifiable and decodable information) or opening my computer out to hackers (e.g. rootkits), I have no problem with it. Companies have the right to protect their software to usage within the agreement. Its a minor annoyance, and of course, we'd rather not have it, but there's nothing wrong with it being there.</p><p></p><p>I have not yet heard of a better alternative to the DRM and other forms of copy protection that's in Vista. And its stupid to say that DRM and copy-protection is not needed - we live in a capitalist society; we need to earn money to live. If its illegal for me to photocopy a book entirely, there's no reason why it shouldn't be illegal for me to digitally copy a document for someone else.</p><p></p><p>That said, the current DRM implementations suck, and even Gates agree, but no one's come up with a better, workable alternative.</p><p></p><p>Sam</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="samuel337, post: 100276, member: 10347"] I'm not defending Microsoft here. Nor am I an anti-Microsoft person. Its just the reality, and unlike what the net world seems to think about Windows Activation, it is not as problematic as it seems. Its not perfect either, but false-positive cases are low. No one out there will write a post every time Windows Activation works; they'll only write when it screws up. And unless its invading my privacy (AFAIK it doesn't rely identifiable and decodable information) or opening my computer out to hackers (e.g. rootkits), I have no problem with it. Companies have the right to protect their software to usage within the agreement. Its a minor annoyance, and of course, we'd rather not have it, but there's nothing wrong with it being there. I have not yet heard of a better alternative to the DRM and other forms of copy protection that's in Vista. And its stupid to say that DRM and copy-protection is not needed - we live in a capitalist society; we need to earn money to live. If its illegal for me to photocopy a book entirely, there's no reason why it shouldn't be illegal for me to digitally copy a document for someone else. That said, the current DRM implementations suck, and even Gates agree, but no one's come up with a better, workable alternative. Sam [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Forums
OffTopic
Vista and content protection (DRM)
Contact us
RSS
Top
Bottom