Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 17:36 UTC, submitted by PR
"Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to provide content protection for so-called 'premium content', typically HD data from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources. Providing this protection incurs considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical support overhead, and hardware and software cost. These issues affect not only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the protection measures extend to cover all hardware and software that will ever come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista (for example hardware in a Macintosh computer or on a Linux server). This document analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry."
Permalink for comment 195753
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2005-07-06
The linked "article" makes a mountain out of a molehill, as does virtually every anti-protection piece I've seen going back to Stallman's failed crusade against passwords.
I do believe content producers should be paid for their work. Perhaps locking and encryption are legitimate ways of ensuring this happens. But crippling everyone's computer in pursuit of enforcing this, as the article demonstrates, is like solving the problem of drink driving by prohibition. The costs exceed the benefits by a factor of thousands, and the costs fall on all, while the benefits accrue to a very few indeed.
There's no "crippling" going on.
The author's complaints fall into two categories:
1. Encryption has a performance overhead
2. Playing protected content along an unprotected content stream affects other currently playing content (unprotected or not)
It's certainly true that decryption has a performance overhead. However, in practice, the overhead is negligible for most systems. Playing back iTunes DRM-protected AAC files does use more CPU cycles than playing back unprotected AAC files, for example, but not so much that millions of iTunes users have noticed, yet alone complained: the difference is less than 1% on older machines. This is even less important in the situations the author describes--any computer outfitted with a Blu-Ray/HD-DVD drive is going to have power to spare. I suppose that if one were to retrofit a Pentium III with a Blu-Ray player, this might prove to be an issue, but it will not affect the vast majority of users.
2. The second point, likewise, is overblown. The author uses the unlikely example of doing high-precision medical-imaging while watching a Blu-Ray HDCP-protected disk on a dated, non-HDMI device. Again, the situation is unlikely to arise in practice.
Tangential to all this is the price of the physical components used in the technology. Certainly HDMI-devices cost more than not HDMI-devices, all things being equal, but not excessively so (on the order of pennies). If ATi or NVIDIA use HDMI as an excuse to bilk early adopters, that's all it is: an excuse.
Given that no Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disks currently require HDCP--and won't for several years--the whole "issue" is moot. By the time HDCP is necessary, HDCP will already be present on the vast majority of applicable hardware.