| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
New Office locks down documents | |
|
||
| Time: 09:57 EST/14:57 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
As digital media publishers scramble to devise a foolproof method of copy protection, Microsoft is ready to push digital rights management into a whole new arena--your desktop. Office 2003, the upcoming update of the company's market-dominating productivity package, for the first time will include tools for restricting access to documents created with the software. Office workers can specify who can read or alter a spreadsheet, block it from copying or printing, and set an expiration date. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 156 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:10:53 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 9/2/2003 12:18:29 PM |
| A brilliant idea. File access rights are the province of the operating system. Viewing, editing, copying, printing have always been controlled by the application. This is inline with standard software design. If the corporate user wants it, he'll click the "Restricted" button and turn it on. Hardly an enforcement by the software vendor. I imagine that many corporations are crying out for this, particularly those whose documents have been leaked without permission. Gee, can it possibly be that Microsoft writes software that its customers want? |
| #2 By 7746 (213.93.165.232) at 9/2/2003 2:26:33 PM |
|
Digital Rights Management is optional in Office 2003, it is not even installed in the default settings.
But it is usefull in some situations, being sure that some information doesn't leave corporations and gets into hands of competitors (happens much more then you think). |
| #3 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/2/2003 2:56:59 PM |
| Are they trying to demotivate people from upgrading? I know our company is treating every new feature which is tied to a new service or Server is to be treated as an un-feature. An actual subtraction. Anything that is going to require that we maintain ANOTHER windows server and is going to impose a barrier between us and our clients and other parties is a NO GO. Rather than a bullet-point for upgrading, this is a bullet-point against upgrading at my company. |
| #4 By 61 (24.92.223.112) at 9/2/2003 3:25:46 PM |
|
soda: Well, I suggest that your company, and if you think the same way, get some common senses...
fnj: There are certain things that the DRM does that the fielsystem doesn't handle natively, and as such needs to be built into the document format. |
| #5 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/2/2003 5:04:47 PM |
|
common senses?
Already've got one. Every server implementation adds substantially to our IT budget vs. the manageable cost of CALs. Our industry is highly dependent on interoperability of documents (lots of local, state, and federal parties, as well as numerous 3rd parties). They will not be transferring to or using any such DRM because of their own issues concerning interoperability. I see nothing about these DRM features that are desirable to our company that cannot be provided in some other form (straightforward encryption for example.) So, sorry, CPU, but I am using common sense in my decision and I am predicting now more fracturing in the market place between those using Office 97/2000/XP vs. what is coming in what 2003? 2004? Who knows with MS, right? Please explain to me why it is common sense to purchase a product which continues to require a new Server product with each new feature, when the features themselves are not that substantially different from features available without a corresponding server? This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 at 17:22. |
| #6 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 9/2/2003 7:03:48 PM |
|
I enjoy reading sodajerk's comical sensical analysis of all Microsoft products.
|
| #7 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 9/2/2003 7:44:31 PM |
|
jerk, I've been using Office 2003 since February. I'm guessing you haven't touched it, either that or I grossly misunderstood your comments.
First, few editions of Office 2003 ship with IRM (Information Rights Management). Academic and retail versions won't have it. (see http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/office2003_editions.asp I think this table is correct. It is much easier IMO to read than the numerous tables on microsoft.com) You're a business, so depending on size, the version you purchase (assuming you purchase) may or may not have IRM. Second, IRM is a client option to enable. It is not "on" by default. You enable it on a specific document. You set specific rights on a specific document. Of that few hundred Office documents I've used since Febrary, only about 15 were IRM'ed, and that was because I was explicitly testing the IRM features. If you don't want to use it, you don't have to. Third, because you don't have to use it if you don't want to, there is no need for additional IT expenditures if you don't want it. It is similar to SharePoint with Office XP. If you don't want to publish your documents to a SharePoint server, you don't have to. You don't have to have a SharePoint server to get OCR, SmartTags, and all the other goodies of Office XP. In like manner, if you don't want IRM, you don't need an IRM server to get the expanded SmartTag support, new Outlook interface, XML programmability, and all the other goodies Office 2003 offers. Microsoft is often a bully with their functionality (WPA was not optional). In this case, it is totally up to the client what to do (or not do) with IRM. This post was edited by BobSmith on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 at 19:45. |
| #8 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/2/2003 8:17:39 PM |
|
No, Bob, you didn't understand and I have used Office 2003.
The issue isn't whether it is optional or not. I am aware that it is optional. My concern is that with future products there will be available server dependencies (which will be implemented by some) that will restrict the desirability to move forward with it. Whether or not we choose to use these features, others will, and ultimately, you create a snowball of adoption activity. However, we have evaluated SharePoint and find it utterly undesirable and IRM will have zero value to us. So why should we adopt a product which can get the snowball rolling? As I said, it counts as a negative feature. Not that we have to use it. Not that it's forced on us or anyone else. Simply by adopting such a product with such features (even if unused) you are promoting that product. In this case, it is undesirable for us to do so because we want to promote the greatest degree of interoperability with our clients and RPs and we want to reduce our dependency on MS server products. Is that clear? |
| #9 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/2/2003 8:19:13 PM |
|
I enjoy reading how soda enjoys reading my posts.
But I really wish he'd post something other than backhanded compliments however cute they are. |
| #10 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 9/3/2003 12:15:55 AM |
|
Jerk, it seems you've fallen prey to the dreaded "slippery slope" or "black and white" logical fallacy. For those unfamiliar, it's the argument that says, well, if we allow x to happen, we know that in time, y will be force on us. Without evidence, the assumption that it will be so, is a fallacy.
Jerk, sorry to have misunderstood. Based on your comments, it sounded as if you were saying Office 2003 had mandatory server dependencies with respect to DRM. As you know, it does not. OpenOffce.org (stupid name!), StarOffice, might also require a Sun Identity Server in future. There is as much evidence to support the one claim as there is the other - none. I'd say, if it has features that benefit you, then get it. If it has features that are a detriment to you (and since IRM isn't mandatory, I don't see how the can possibly be a detriment in this release) and they outweigh the positives, then don't get it. Especially if you already have Microsoft Office licenses, I think it is wiser from a business perspective to take it version by version than to speculate what Microsoft might do in Office 12 in at least 2 but probably 3 years from now. If Office 12 does something so detrimental that your company can't justify the purchase, then stick with Office 11 (2003) and don't upgrade then. |
| #11 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/3/2003 12:42:08 AM |
|
"Jerk, it seems you've fallen prey to the dreaded "slippery slope" or "black and white" logical fallacy. For those unfamiliar, it's the argument that says, well, if we allow x to happen, we know that in time, y will be force on us."
Not really. I beleive I stated mine and our (the company I work for) reasons -- the initial and overpowering one. The need to maintain interoperability with governments and such (some still using pre-97 versions of Office)... However, even on the issue of a slippery slope. I don't see it as you do. I do not presume "y will be force[d] on us". I do presume "y is dependent on our company owning and using y server." But I do not presume any changes or requirements in the future whatsoever. But I can still do x to voice my opinion that I am not attracted to y packaging of services at this time. "OpenOffce.org (stupid name!), StarOffice, might also require a Sun Identity Server in future. There is as much evidence to support the one claim as there is the other - none." As I said, I'm not presume anything or fearing someday being forced to do anything. And I don't care about Sun's products. "I'd say, if it has features that benefit you, then get it." I said they don't and I won't. "Especially if you already have Microsoft Office licenses, I think it is wiser from a business perspective to take it version by version than to speculate what Microsoft might do in Office 12 in at least 2 but probably 3 years from now." What I am saying is that in 5+ years our compnay will have no use for IRM and many of the new "features." We may consider SharePoint in a year or two, but even then I doubt we'll choose to implement it... and so on. |
| #12 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/3/2003 12:48:09 AM |
|
""straightforward encryption" is not and never will be a replacement for DRM. They are nothing alike."
I never said they were, parker. Jesus. I said my company's need and other features already provided already can provide any and all needs which could be considered DRM. We don't need expiring files. And they would be a detriment. We do not need files attached to specific users (from the file but authenticated off of servers). And such files could be a detriment to us. Network and file locations are appropriate modes of security and permissioning to us. It would not be a benefit to the entities which we report to, our clients, or any other parties involved for us to produce such files... etc... i.e. Our recent email encryption project completed our DRM needs for our company for many, many years. I would also note we have contracts and verbal agreements which supersede, are far more valuable, and are truly legally bounding restricting the rights of all the materials we produce. So why would we replicate that trust/rights system technology when we are not exposed to physical compromise? That was my point, but thanks for the lesson on DRM. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 at 01:45. |
| #13 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/3/2003 1:07:49 AM |
|
"Whose version of "desirability"? Yours aparently."
Duh, yes. No, yours. When have I ever not expressed my own opinion? "Are you afraid that you will be required to use IRM in the next version?" No. "So what other people do directly affects you?" Yes, certainly. I've said it before: every dumbass that says nuthin can effect nuthin unless you want it to is retarded. These same people do not understand that they speak English, went to school, etc... things that had effects on them. "I think it sounds more like you'd rather not see anyone adopt these new features because you might have to cope with it. Welcome to IT. You haven't been here long have you?" No sh1t. I'm quite familiar with it. I've coped, and used, and rebelled, and expressed opinions, and caused some change, and changed some minds, etc. for fifteen years now. So why am I supposed to give up my opinions and resistence to certain technologies, etc... now? "In the end it just sounds like you'd do or say anything to prevent Microsoft from gaining any more marketshare, functionality or cash flow. Let me ask you, how much time in each day do you spend thinking about this? I'm really starting to worry that you might schedule a vistit to the campus in a three piece suit: jacket, pants and explosive vest." What? I'd say about 3 hours interspersed between tasks from 1 minute to 1 hour at work. Work is the only time I think of Microsoft really. It's called a hobby while enjoying your work day... I'm appreciated for my work in such respect that no one notices how much time I spend talking to you dumbasses while having a busy day nonetheless. Would you like to discuss my other hobbies? "In other words you don't want to because you don't want them to." Yes. Didn't I say that. Why do you keep restating stuff I've obviously said. "You imagine that your pitiful little choice to adopt amounts to ANYTHING to your clients et. al." No, I don't think my choice matters at all. I do think our clients want us to make this choice. Which was the reason for making that choice in the first place. I also DO THINK a fair percentage of MS's own users might agree with me, but that has nothing to do with my opinion influencing them. "You might be right but you'd better be in a well cloistered vertical market without competitors. If those clients have options and you don't serve their interoperability needs then they might not remain your clients much longer." Umm, I've been telling you that our interoperability needs require us to accomodate the lowliest of the low. PDF is a dominant format in some respects. Word 97 in others. RTF, CSV, and DBFs for others. DGN and many others for more substantial files but that's a small percentage. I got our company past a year of complaints about IE-only web sites because of governments and educational institutions. Big deal? No, it was cake, but it was a big silly feather for me, and it eliminated an MS dependency that sucked and was undesirable. I have no fear that an IRMed-Word format is going to be anywhere near a desirable format for us, our competitors, and the governments, regulatory bodies, schools, and clients we deal with. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 at 01:10. |
| #14 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/3/2003 1:08:06 AM |
|
"You're just worried that you're going to have to buck up and do that which is repulsive to you: implement Microsoft products."
baarod, remember me, sodajerk? I've been using Windows for 7 years now. "Well here's some news: 95% and growing is a market that you won't serve. 5% and shrinking is your potential client base." I'm happily employed for as long as I want to stay with my present company, dumbass. "Who's your CIO? I think it's time to give him a call. He might be interested in how you utilize company time here :-)" You're right. He's pissed at me for screwing up his Football draft and wants me to spend more time gathering silly sh1t of the web to entertain him, get on planning the annual Vegas/Comdex trip (that we all have very good reasons for attending! Yeah right, even our CIO and Network Mgr. don't feel they have a good reason for going), gather football stats, or update information on our league and taunt the other team owners. "It's simple. You are afraid. You are shaking in your boots. The snowballs are coming at you from all directions and you can't stop it." Aaaah, Oooooh, NOooooo. It's the same sh!t I've been living through for a decade! How will I ever survive the release of Office 2003butreally4!!! "Invective? Yes. Ad hominem? True." Yeah, exactly. Who gives a sh1t. We all indulge. And it was fun replying to your very narrow and retarded perspective on me. "I'm just calling them like I see them, Jerk." Keep on rocking, baarod! Jesus. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 at 01:14. |
| #15 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 9/3/2003 1:58:40 AM |
|
Jerk, I'm rather annoyed. I was not accusatory, yet you responded to me not too nicely. If you took offense at my comments, it was not intended. I was merely looking at your statements.
"I know our company is treating every new feature which is tied to a new service or Server is to be treated as an un-feature. An actual subtraction. Anything that is going to require that we maintain ANOTHER windows server and is going to impose a barrier between us and our clients and other parties is a NO GO. Rather than a bullet-point for upgrading, this is a bullet-point against upgrading at my company. " "My concern is that with future products there will be available server dependencies (which will be implemented by some) that will restrict the desirability to move forward with it. Whether or not we choose to use these features, others will, and ultimately, you create a snowball of adoption activity. However, we have evaluated SharePoint and find it utterly undesirable and IRM will have zero value to us. So why should we adopt a product which can get the snowball rolling? As I said, it counts as a negative feature. Not that we have to use it. Not that it's forced on us or anyone else. Simply by adopting such a product with such features (even if unused) you are promoting that product. In this case, it is undesirable for us to do so because we want to promote the greatest degree of interoperability with our clients and RPs and we want to reduce our dependency on MS server products. " So, what's your issue with Office 2003? Is it IRM? You admit that if your company doesn't use it, there is not server dependency. You say you aren't arguing slippery slope, yet you say "My concern is that with future products there will be available server dependencies (which will be implemented by some) that will restrict the desirability to move forward with it." Either this sounds like the same situation we have now - if you want more value, buy the server to go with it - or this sounds like slipper slope. "Not really. I beleive I stated mine and our (the company I work for) reasons -- the initial and overpowering one. The need to maintain interoperability with governments and such (some still using pre-97 versions of Office)... " I don't believe you had stated the versions of Office they use. IIRC Word, Excel, and PowerPoint haven't changed their format since '97. A .doc file from Office 2003 opens in Word '97. If you go back to pre-97, that's a different story. If you are using any version of Office after '95, though, you'll have the same interop issues you have with Office 2003. The only issue with Office 2003 is that you have additional capabilities if you want them. You can add XML programmability, IRM, smart documents via Visual Studio Tools for Office, etc. These documents would be Office 2003 only, but the default format (.doc, .xls, .ppt) is still the same format it's been since '97. I don't see your point with interop. Office 2003 let's you open 2k3 docs and all previous docs. It let's you create pre 2k3 docs. What's the interop problem? A note on your snowball. I don't think that is too valid with respect to IRM, because I think the main use for IRM will be internal. If I am going to share a document with you, it's likely not going to be IRM'ed. If I want to keep it in the company, I might IRM it to keep it from getting leaked. Could be wrong on that. That's just my impression. |
| #16 By 61 (24.92.223.112) at 9/3/2003 3:37:06 PM |
|
jerk, you act like any feature that doesn't help you out is a problem, or even hurtful to your company. It's not a black and white environment. When you way out the good and the bad about a product you can't say simply because you don't need a feature you put it with the bad, and then use that as a way to keep from upgrading.
Now if you really do not need the product, or if the product won't help your company be more productive and serve your customers better, then there is obviously no reason to get it. I also notice that you are making these asinine predictions years in advanced as if it's set in stone, in reality you have no clue what your companies needs will be in 5 years.. heck, you don't even know that you will be there in 5 years, or even 1 year. While, yes, you do obviously need to make predictions of what you will need and won't need in the future, you still have to realize these things are not fact, only possible outcomes. |
| #17 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/3/2003 5:31:13 PM |
|
Boy you guys take this too far and don't get it. I do not like the direction the product is going. And I can FIRMLY and DEFINITELY state that we will not be implementing anything like this for over 5 years. Plain and simple. Yes, I understand that I do not need to use the features. No, I do not fear this being "forced." I simply see little to gain and much to lose and have no desire assisting MS promoting a product which I do not like the design of. I did not say this one feature is my excuse for not upgrading. I said I haven't seen enough to compell me to, and I see enough that is undesirable. This is one of those undesirable things. And by undesirable, I mean, not only unnecessary, but also negative.
Bob, I'd appreciate it if you could point out what is offensive in my post to you... I can't find anything. What I am trying to do is clarify to you that this notion of slippery slope is more basic than you make it. You turn it into a conspiracy theory. But I am not even getting to the point where I am presuming dire consequences -- I do not like the current path it is on, and the obvious next step for the Office product is not desirable even if there is zero lock-in, which I am presuming__ZERO LOCK-IN.... so why can't I exercise my freedom as a customer to not support something which is not compelling and try to factor in as a market force, an element that persuades MS to change their directions? Plain and simple. This feature is not desirable. I do not have to use it, but it is a turnoff. So I won't buy. CPU, I'm actually certain I'll be here in five years as long as I don't die. What do you care what decisions I say are best for my company anyway? You are actually trying to tell me, convince me: "Naw, naw, don't say that... you don't know... in three or five years your company is going to want or need this!" Hah? You don't know sh1t about the company I work for, nor do you have any interest in selecting products for me. "Now if you really do not need the product, or if the product won't help your company be more productive and serve your customers better, then there is obviously no reason to get it." I've said this about 5 times already, but I'm still getting the hard sell from people with no interest in this, who don't work for MS. Wonder why I call you softies? parker, you are an idiot. Why can't you read? I've said three times now that I don't think and never said encryption was DRM, fool. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 at 20:27. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 156 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:10:53 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
