Check the fine print

Currently, DRM technology is associated just with music or video content, but there's no legal reason it can't be used with software applications as well. One reader expressed the concern that in order to enforce common license terms, DRM technology might have to distinguish customer communications from those of internal users at a company. "As I read this, we will be guilty of violating federal privacy laws if we don't at least warn our customers that Microsoft and its partners may have access to their records," the reader said. "Perhaps our firewall can prevent Microsoft from doing this, but how can I be sure?"

Microsoft officials say that the language in the PUR agreement, which it confirms is also in the Windows XP EULA (End User License Agreement) itself, is not intended to force upgrades on customers. "Our goal is to give the user control over whether a system is being updated, regardless of whether the user is a consumer or an institution," a statement from Microsoft's legal team read. "The 'Internet-based Services Components' section of the Windows XP EULA was written specifically to ensure that we are in compliance with all regulations that require notification when the configuration choices that a user makes could potentially access one of the auto-updating features of Windows XP. We clearly have more work to do to make sure that it's clear when these automatic features are used, and we are looking at how to do a better job at that. But it is certainly not our intent to access any user's system when that is not what they desire."

Both corporate and individual customers can choose to turn off Windows Auto-Update, the Microsoft officials pointed out. Similarly, users will be told when a content owner is requiring an update to Microsoft's DRM technology and they will have the option to download it. "If the user elects not to update the security component, he or she will be unable to play content protected by our DRM from that point forward, although content previously obtained would still be usable."

Well, swell. But if it is indeed Microsoft's intent to continue giving users the right to decline downloads, why has the company written its XP agreements to force users to explicitly surrender that right? Are customers supposed to ignore what the licenses say and just hope Microsoft won't ever do what the terms say it can do? That's not a concept that will make anyone other than Bill Gates feel very secure.