Microsoft Will Lock Out Linux

For decades now open-sources have been running dual boot set ups featuring both Windows and Linux running alongside from a standardized boot. Nevertheless, the news is that in the new Windows 8, the firmware known as UEFI is going to replace the low level BIOS along with the ability to lock down PCs so that operating systems should be digitally signed through “secure boot”.

The industry couldn’t stay calm after this news. Ross Anderson, Cambridge University security engineering professor, claimed that Microsoft pushing for obligatory UEFI support would mean that such “unauthorized” operating systems as Linux or FreeBSD just won’t be able to run at all. The professor pointed out that it would mean an increased lock-in, less consumer choice and, as usual, less space to innovate. Overall, the entire idea is absolutely unlawful and mustn’t succeed.

However, software colossus Microsoft was quick to deny that its new operating system has been specifically designed to lock out Linux. The company’s representative said that secure boot was not a tool to lock out OS loaders, but rather a policy allowing firmware to validate authenticity of components. Microsoft has posted a long description of UEFI and the OS support for the next-generation security feature, trying to prove that it won’t control the settings on computer firmware which either control or enable secured boot from any OS different from Windows.

However, Linux fans remain a bit concerned about the secure booting feature of Microsoft that might lock their favorite operating system out. Moreover, the media already report that Linux Australia members have filed a complaint to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission about the plans of software giant and been told they have a case.

The argument of the group was that any software or hardware will need to be signed by Microsoft or any other relevant original equipment manufacturer to be able to run. This clearly means that alternative OS like Linux (and maybe even older versions of Windows) won’t work without the secure keys bundled with new OS releases and many more.

In respond, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has hinted that the open-sources may have a case if they provided more information on the issue. That’s why Linux Australia is planning to bring the matter up again and consider a larger campaign against Windows 8. 

Aussie ISP Proposes To Treat Piracy As “Traffic Offenses”

In 2008 the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft filed its first lawsuit against Aussie ISP iiNet, stating that iiNet did not manage to undertake any measures to stop their network customers’ unlawful file-sharing. The Internet Service Provider succeeded in the first court trial and the trial’s verdict was upheld on the AFACT appeal.

Recently, iiNet has offered a number of rational ways out of this controversial situation, which were published in its report “Encouraging Legitimate Use of Online Content”. The company underlines the importance of diversifying legal options applied to the pirated content. According to the report, limiting the content accessibility is unreasonable, especially if it is much sought after by the network users. Meanwhile, the number of unsatisfied users keeps growing. They allege that they do not have any other choice but to turn to piracy simply because of the copyright holders’ inability to provide them with reasonable legal options. It is ridiculous that Australian residents cannot enjoy their beloved movies or TV shows until they show up in the US. As a result, the growing public demand is not satisfied.

As far as the above mentioned problem needs serious consideration, iiNet offers the following legal solutions. First, it is required to organize an independent body, the implementation of which into the process will enable to consider all the raised infringement claims as well as complaints of the network customers, access providers and content holders. Second, iiNet suggests making up a special copyright infringement penalty scheme, similar to that applied for traffic offenses.

For example, if traffic offense happens only once, the person will be fined or get demerit points. In case the offender keeps overlooking traffic regulations, demerit points will be accumulated, which may eventually result in the offender’s driving license suspension. In accordance with the iiNet’s report, the same penalty scheme should be applied to copyright infringements as well.

It is emphasized that just as even the most serious traffic offenses caused by speeding never result in complete prohibition to use different means of transport, copyright infringement should never end up with Internet termination. Here everything should depend on the gravity of copyright infringement. The more serious the infringer’s fault is, the more severe penalty should be imposed. Thus, copyright infringements may be subdivided into minor, major and serious, depending on the seriousness of the infringer’s fault, starting with fines and demerit points that will range according to the ISP’s financial loss related to the copyright infringement and up to the involvement of the infringer’s treatment fees set by the court.