“A conversation has cropped up since the recent publication of a paper scrutinizing how Windows handles digital rights management, especially for HD video. I’ve since looped back with Dave Marsh, a Lead Program Manager responsible for Windows’ handling of video, to learn from him the implications involved and to learn to what extent the paper’s assertions are accurate. The following is an article Dave has put together to address the misconceptions in the paper, followed by answers to what we expect will be the most frequent questions in the minds of our customers.”
Dave can say what he wants, but there is no such thing as benign DRM.
“Yes, we do most of what that paper says, but because it’s what XP does or other digital devices will need to do, everything is fine”
Will Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU resource consumption? Yes. However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable, as the PC provides consumers with additional functionality.
Translate: YES, it does eat more CPU, just to support a DRM method that HAS ALREADY BEEN BROKEN. Re-translation: You’re wasting CPU for a protection that doesn’t protects anything. Thanks, Microsoft & hollywood!
Will the playback quality be reduced on some video output types? Image quality constraints are only active when required by the policy associated with the content being played, and then only apply to that specific content — not to any other content on the user’s desktop.
Translate: Yes, Vista will reduce the quality of your HD video if your hardware is not DRM-capable (ie: you use a DVI connector instead of HDPM). But it doesn’t affects the quality of the rest of your desktop! (well, microsoft is _lucky_ that it doesn’t, not that i was expecting it, the paper didnt even mention _that_)
Do content protection requirements mean that graphics chips have to provide hardware acceleration for video decode?: The Windows Vista content protection requirements do not require that graphics hardware include hardware acceleration for decode for many years, but such support is highly recommended to improve the user experience for HD content.
Translate: Yes, if you want to see HD video at high quality and you don’t want vista to lower the resolution of your HD video – not because your current graphics card & cpu can’t do it, but because you’re using a DVI connector instead of a encryption-powered HDPM one – you’ll need a graphic card that includes hardware acceleration for decoding a protection scheme that HAS ALREADY BEEN BROKEN
Does Windows Vista’s use of OMAC-authenticated communication impact graphics driver performance?: The authenticated communication mechanisms used for Protected Video Path in Windows Vista are only actively used while commercial content is playing. This means that while there is a performance impact, it is limited to the scenarios where it is required to provide robust protection for commercial content.
Translate: Yes, there’s a performance impact, and i’ll need to close the apps that play protected content because if i try to multitask those taks and others at the same times, I’ll get a performance hit in the ones that don’t play protected content.
Does this complicate the process of writing graphics drivers?: Adding new functionality usually introduces new complexity. In this case, additional complexity is added to the graphics driver, but that complexity comes with the direct consumer benefit of new scenarios such as HD-DVD or Blu-Ray playback.
Translate: Yes, graphic drivers will need to be more complex not to make graphic faster or prettier, but to make happy the hollywood studios and use protection content methods that ARE ALREADY BROKEN.
Will Component (YPbPr) video outputs be disabled by Windows Vista’s content protection?: Similar to S/PDIF, Windows Vista does not require component video outputs to be disabled, but rather enables the enforcement of the usage policy set by content owners or service providers, including with respect to output restrictions and image constraint.
Translate: Yes, if the provider wants to enforce it they’ll be disabled.
Will the Windows Vista content protection board robustness recommendations increase the cost of graphics cards and reduce the number of build options? Everything was moving to be integrated on the one chip anyway and this is independent of content protection recommendations. Given that cost (particularly chip cost) is most heavily influenced by volume, it is actually better to avoid making things optional through the use of external chips.
Translate: YES, hardware makers will need to add special hardware to play HD video. But because every graphics card will add it it’ll be cheaper than adding it as “extra”! *G*
Edited 2007-01-20 22:39
So I wont be able to play legally bought HD movies without getting new hardware and let windows spoil the performance? Well, I guess I’ll just pirate the stuff then.
This DRM thing sounds good! I’ll take two!
If it doesn’t “handle DRM” by sticking two fingers up at it, avoid.
Sadly, there aren’t more than a select few consumer entertainment giants that can give Big Media the finger and, in the process, do anything positive for their customers. And MS was at the top of the list.
On the other hand, it’s one thing for consumers to made up their mind about DRM (in its various implementations, including HDCP) and make their purchasing decisions accordingly. It’s another thing for consumer entertainment businesses to make those decisions for you.
I would have liked to see MS take a hard stand against this astonishing escalation of DRM policies. But this would have been a bad service to the weirdos out there that still think that DRM is a small price to pay for the protection of the conglomerates that bring us such outstanding content.
OSNews readers should note that advocacy has its limitations. People don’t like to be told what to do or what’s best for them, whether it be rejecting DRM, switching to Linux, or any number of other ideas that seem to make so much sense to us.
Personal experience is the best motivator. In this case, I think that Joe Consumer has no idea what horrors await him in this new era of digital protectionism. But in some ways, I think that MS did him a good service by letting him figure this out on his own.
Edited 2007-01-20 23:16
Personal experience is the best motivator. In this case, I think that Joe Consumer has no idea what horrors await him in this new era of digital protectionism. But in some ways, I think that MS did him a good service by letting him figure this out on his own.
Well, I agree with the first sentence (after having used Linux successfully for 8 years and suffered because of Windows, I would never go back), but unfortunately the “Joe User” Microsoft act for – well that tells you the whole story. Microsoft act for him because he’s unwilling or unable to make decisions for himself. I know plenty of people who would think nothing of consulting the manual on a VCR but somehow think that computers – a vastly more complex and varied device – should be usable without them. Never will be.
I reject the notion that consumers are unwilling or unable to make their own decisions. Not because it isn’t true in many cases, but because we’re all screwed if this notion is generalizable. If we expect corporations or even governments to protect us from making bad decisions, we’re setting ourselves up for a big letdown.
In the boardrooms of Big Media, when they were discussing their approach to copy protection in a digital world, they could assume without question that the governments and corporations would stand by their side. The only question on their minds would have been about how much we, the consumers, would be willing to tolerate.
Why are people more-than-willing to apologize for their own ignorance? It’s as if they put a big sign on their back that says, “Please, take advantage of me! I don’t know any better, and I won’t say anything!” In times long forgotten you’d expect to get robbed and raped. So why don’t people see it coming today?
I know it’s a complicated world. But if you don’t at least make it seem like you know what you’re doing, don’t be surprised when you get the long end of the stick… exactly where you don’t want it.
If we expect corporations or even governments to protect us from making bad decisions, we’re setting ourselves up for a big letdown.
Exactly right. I’ve been hearing a lot about ‘boycott Vista!’, especially as it revolves around this issue. But when you point out the fact that this DRM scheme wasn’t even created by Microsoft, the standard answer is, “But why didn’t MS put their foot down and stand up to the content creators?” And I have to answer that with a question – why the hell should they? As consumers, are we no longer capable of making our own decisions? If you want to say that most consumers are too stupid to make up their own minds about this, then why don’t we just tell them what appliations they have to install along with ‘protecting’ them from this DRM?
You guys who have been spewing a lot of venom at MS because of this, I understand where you’re coming from, but PLEASE aim your venom at the content creators where it belongs! MS is doing little more than giving you the option to partake in the content. Whether you do or don’t is still up to you.
And I’m anxious to find out how Mac enthusiasts react when this stuff makes its way into OSX. And you know it’ll happen. I also wouldn’t be surprised to see it in some flavors of Linux as well.
In regard to the protection scheme being cracked, is that merely the ACS encryption (or whatever the hell it is), or does that also encompass the HDCP part as well? I wasn’t aware that they’d started turning on the HDCP flag, and that they were going to wait until 2010 to start doing so. If that’s the case, I wonder if this cracking is going to inspire them to start turning it on sooner.
Edited 2007-01-21 02:10
You guys who have been spewing a lot of venom at MS because of this, I understand where you’re coming from, but PLEASE aim your venom at the content creators where it belongs! MS is doing little more than giving you the option to partake in the content. Whether you do or don’t is still up to you.
So not true. Microsoft went out there and sold the concept of DRM to these companies and told them that they could protect their investment on their operating system for DUMPTRUCKS FULL OF CASH.
And that, dear friends, is how it came to be. Yes the content providers were asking how it could be done and yes the content providers created the copy protection schemes on the media themselves (physical media anyway) but Microsoft is the one that brought the DRM features to them for the appropriate fees both cash and otherwise (think exclusive content partnerships).
Edited 2007-01-21 03:09
So not true. Microsoft went out there and sold the concept of DRM to these companies and told them that they could protect their investment on their operating system for DUMPTRUCKS FULL OF CASH.
Are you sure? I looked up HDCP on Wikipedia:
High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) is a form of Digital Rights Management (DRM) developed by Intel Corporation to control digital audio and video content as it travels across Digital Visual Interface (DVI) or High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) connections.
Later in the article, it says:
Microsoft has announced that their next operating system release, Windows Vista, will support this technology in the context of computer graphics cards and monitors.
So it looks like the technology was invented by Intel, sold to content creators, and implemented by Microsoft in Vista as away of letting users view this content on their computers.
Again, I’m not seeing how MS are the ones who invented this stuff.
Edited 2007-01-21 05:14
Wow. For once, this is not Microsoft’s fault. How could it be? The media companies have put Microsoft in a bad position. MS wants to gain marketshare in the living room entertainment center space. However, it is much harder to lock down PCs than it is to harden a dedicated consumer electronics appliance. The more onerous the DRM technology, the harder it is for MS to compete in this critical market.
Microsoft is miffed because HDCP has been very slow in reaching PC graphics cards. This is really putting their media center strategy in jeopardy. MS is used to playing by their own rules, but with DRM they are being forced to play by Big Media’s rules.
The new HD-related DRM technologies were first implemented on consumer electronics devices and then made their way to the PC. This runs counter to your assertion that MS forced the issue. Big Media is shoving this stuff down our throats. Yes, Microsoft could have done something about it, and they didn’t. But that doesn’t imply that MS is responsible for this mess.
Cool the conspiracy theories and place the blame where it belongs.
I think that there’s a lot of blame to go around and, yes, some of it belongs to MS. They could have fought against it but they didn’t and that makes them responsible. Instead of pouring a fortune into implementing this DRM nightmare they could have took some of that money and started a campaign to inform people exactly what the **AA was trying to do to them.
Sadly, there aren’t more than a select few consumer entertainment giants that can give Big Media the finger and, in the process, do anything positive for their customers. And MS was at the top of the list.
…
I would have liked to see MS take a hard stand against this astonishing escalation of DRM policies.
You greatly over estimate MS’s power visa-vi “Big Media”. I’m guessing that the number of times that any DVD is watched on a computer is at least two orders of magnitude smaller than the number of times a DVD is watched on a dedicated player. So, if MS had “taken a hard stand”, “Big Media” would’ve said, “Screw You”, kept the DRM in place, and Vista simply wouldn’t be able to play the discs at all.
(In fact, many media companies would rather that be the case, since computer software players (as opposed to hardware players), are what hackers attack to extract keys, and computers are the primary intrument used for piracy. Big Media would like nothing better than to not have computers play their discs at all.)
The notion that MS could have taken a hard stand and forced Big Media to drop DRM is simply wrong.
OSX Leopard will implement the same DRM if it will play high-def discs. And Apple is a member of BDA (BluRay Disc Association), so don’t look for them to take a “hard stand” either.
I’m guessing that the number of times that any DVD is watched on a computer is at least two orders of magnitude smaller than the number of times a DVD is watched on a dedicated player. So, if MS had “taken a hard stand”, “Big Media” would’ve said, “Screw You”, kept the DRM in place, and Vista simply wouldn’t be able to play the discs at all.
Exactly. And personally, I find watching movies on a PC quite unpleasant – much better to watch using a dedicated player in the lounge room on a comfy couch. I would not have cared one bit if MS had simply decided not to support these standards (though given the growing popularity of Media Centre PCs, it isn’t the slightest bit surprising that they decided to tag along with the MPAA et al).
As long as the OS behaves reliably and doesn’t waste CPU cycles when there is no Protected media in the drive, I am personally not too concerned.
And there will be a large market for devices or software that bypasses the copy protection measures (just like the many DVD players sold have the Region Coding disabled by default, and there are various CSS cracking softwares available for bypassing DVD copy protection). Quite a large number of people are used to copying DVDs (renting them at the local video hire and copying them for example), and they are likely to demand the ability to copy whatever new format of disc comes out, just like they do with DVDs and CDs. Though again, I would be surprised if these High Definition formats really take off, as they don’t really offer a real advantage over current formats – most of the High Definition content is imperceptible to the eyes and ears unless you are right in front of the screen and have very expensive audiophile sound systems. The majority of people sit some distance away from the TV, where unless they have very good eyesight, are unlikely to notice the difference in quality.
Edited 2007-01-21 09:08
Hoping that DRM dies by itself will not cut it, and OSNews readers have no excuse for not trying to work around infestations such as Vista.
OSNews readers have more power than they think. Many are steeped in Microsoft and Apple technologies and can have a surprising degree of influence on the choices of others in their lives. They should visit badvista.org and defectivebydesign.org to learn how to more effectively advocate against DRM-infested technologies.
Short-term thinking prevents us from seeing the evil of DRM. By 2010 nearly everything can be locked down*, so we can kiss the PC goodbye. To see this as anything other than a travesty is to fail to understand what the PC really represents to us.
An objection to advocacy is that people are not idiots and that, say, Microsoft is doing a service by letting Joe Blow figure it out by himself that DRM is evil. This objection simply flies in the face of human nature. Objectors should ponder the following as yet unproven observation:
“Politics is invisible.”
We see it only in hindsight, after the damage is already done. Even the smartest strategists, say, at Microsoft, were victims, in how the MPAA/RIAA blindsided IT with DMCA, WIPO crap, etc.
Disabuse yourself about politics here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
Put it all together and tell me, is there any excuse left to not advocate against the likes of Vista?
Lack of transparency explains many modern ills, and techies can help achieve an essential improvement by working against DRM at every turn!
(*) See the following topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_computing
Edited 2007-01-21 17:39
Associating usage policies with commercial content is not new to Windows Vista, or to the industry. In fact, much of the functionality discussed in the paper has been part of previous versions of Windows
Errrrr, no it hasn’t.
Standard definition DVD playback has required selective use of Macrovision ACP on analog television outputs since it was introduced in the 1990s.
Because DVDs could be copied digitally anyway, so any analogue protection didn’t matter.
The ability to restrict audio outputs (e.g., S/PDIF) for certain types of content has been available since Windows Millennium Edition
I don’t know of any previous version of Windows that disabled S/PDIF when certain content was played.
Contrary to claims made in the paper, the content protection mechanisms do not make Windows Vista PCs less reliable than they would be otherwise
That is just speculation, and is yet to be proved. Making something not work in certain circumstances is just a bad idea. A lot of software doesn’t work even when people intend it to work.
This is not the case. The content protection infrastructure in Windows Vista provides a range of à la carte options that allows applications playing back protected content to properly enable the protections required by the policies established for such content by the content owner
No idea what he’s trying to say there. They’re active.
The rest of the stuff built into Vista is just blamed on the content provider if it is activated.
Everything was moving to be integrated on the one chip anyway and this is independent of content protection recommendations. Given that cost (particularly chip cost) is most heavily influenced by volume, it is actually better to avoid…
What has that drivel got to do with this increasing the cost of graphics card production?
Yes. However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable
The thing is, those CPU cycles are pointless. They don’t provide any extra functionality or features whatsoever.
The CSS content protection system for DVD-video discs requires output protections such as Macrovision ACP
He always seems to go back to Macrovision in order to try and find something.
Windows Vista does not require S/PDIF to be turned off, but Windows Vista continues to support the ability to turn it off for certain content
That’s a yes then.
Windows Vista does not require component video outputs to be disabled, but rather enables the enforcement of the usage policy set by content owners or service providers
That’s a yes again.
It is better if they show as different codec types, as it allows the difference to be reflected in the UI, thus providing the user help with their configuration and creating a better user experience.
Utter drivel. There is no point in the distinction between S/PDIF codecs and HDMI.
I cannot believe how many people in the street that think DRM is a good thing for their protection.
I suppose it is the same amount of people who think Bush + blair are protecting their public……
So, do I have this right?
If we count American liberals and British conservatives and sum the two results, we arrive at the number of DRM objectors?
If we count American liberals and British conservatives and sum the two results, we arrive at the number of DRM objectors?
That’s right, <0.0001% of Americans are suicide bombers, so >99.999% Americans totally support all of their administation’s policies.
Oh wait a moment, I just noticed the grey. Not everything is just black-and-white.
Obviously not. For example, I believe Bush and Blair should be much more tough with the jihadists, then they are. And, in the same time, I don’t believe that DRM protects me, or any other consumer.
DRM protect the rights of content owner. Entertainment industry OWNS the content, not the consumer who buys copy. You don’t have to buy it if you don’t agree with that.
Stallman and others may not agree, but it does not change anything. They could advise people not buy the content under such condition, but they have picked the wrong way. They should learn a thing or two about PR, in the first place.
DG
Actually, consumers do own the content when they buy it. Or at least thats the way it has been for the last 275+ years until recently. The only thing copyright covers is who is allowed to make copies for distribution. NOT what or how or when I can use the copy I bought. Its like a book. Would you let someone tell you when you buy a book that you can only read it once, between 6-9pm, and you can’t let your neighbor borrow it? Of course not. Look at libraries. They loan out books all the time. Copyright only covers copying. The content industry is using electronics and high tech laws to take away our normal use rights.
Consumers own the one copy of content, in fact.
Stallman does more harm than good. He wraps everything in philosophy, and people do not care for philosophy. People do not want to be told what’s right and what’s wrong. Philosophy is for philosophers.
Good PR campaign would explain people that the deal with media companies is not fair. It could use an example of a person who collects music by “Rolling Stones”. It takes a lot of time and certain amount of money to create a collection. Suddenly the standards are changed, reproduction devices (players) are obsoleted, and consumers starts collecting all over.
It is not just about the money, it is about the time and effort spent. Old music is harder and harder to collect, because new titles (“hits”) are favoured. People are actually loosing something they care for.
That is something that no consumer is going to like a one bit. In fact, a lot of them would be pissed, and they will vote with their wallets.
This is just an example, and good campaign can do much more.
Activism and philosophy only helps media companies. They could say: “Look at our opposition, aren’t they pathetic ? Do you really wan’t to be like them ?”. In fact, they don’t have to say anything, they can just ignore the whole thing, and that is what they do.
DG
“Yes. However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable, as the PC provides consumers with additional functionality.” I suppose that *may* be true from an O.S. standpoint, but me thinks he doth make a case for “give em an inch, he’ll take you a mile.”
In this era of “internet” everywhere…. why THE HELL doesn’t this fella include a link to the paper that originated this article in the first place? Could it be that he wants people to know as little about it as possible??? SICKENING.
http://osnews.com/story.php/16799/Cost-Analysis-of-Windows-Vista-Co…
Edited 2007-01-21 01:07
It’s basically a big “They’re making us do it, and they’re turning it on; we just wrote the code causing the transgression.”
Pathetic, the original article was quite good. This “defense” was little more than an admission of guilt.
As in Nazi: “We just have followed the orders…”
Most people don’t care about this stuff, and this is going to be the same, and I’ll explain why, as you’ve all said, the protection schemes have already been cracked, as we speak people are making it easier to pirate this stuff, and by the time anyone has a reason to worry about it, there’ll be a nice 2-5 mb file on the net that handles the problem for them. The real solution to drm would be to let the media companies get away with it for 2 years. Give them the win, let the public see how life is like without pirated dvds and movies, then release the cracks. Then see what happens in the next round of DRM. atm everyone thinks/knows that this is going to be like dvd, sure there’ll be pain for legit consumers but 90% of people just aren’t going to care.
…of High Definition content anyway? I personally find the current resolution of current DVDs perfectly acceptable, and at normal viewing distances, all of those extra pixels in HD get lost anyway (maybe I need glasses though
). DRM doesn’t particularly bother me in that it is usually cracked before it is in common use, and I don’t often use my computer to watch movies. I am not the sort of person to spend much on DVDs anyway, since I rarely watch a film more than once, unless it is very good.
If the big media conglomerates wanted to combat piracy, then all they have to do is lower the RRP of DVDs etc. to the point that it is scarcely worth the expense and effort of buying blank DVDs and burning a copy. They will likely find that any loss of profits will be more than offset by increased sales and not having to spend money on developing futile copy protection schemes.
That said, I would prefer that the OS not waste CPU cycles on some “feature” I will never use…
..to buy a DVD player that contains CSS by it’s nature. Or it will be okay to buy a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player that contains all of this same stuff, but it is not okay for an OS to support it so people can watch it on their PC’s? Are we just angry cause MS and Apple have done it first? I really and truly do not get it.
yes, you really do not get it.
Most people around here think DRM is purely for DVDs, however, if you actually read into it, Windows DRM can be applied to an office file. You can send out an email to a list of people, but have certain people on the list unable to see the email.
You can make documents accessible a certain number of times before locking them. And so on and so forth.
This DRM malarky is one of the reasons governments and education authorities the world over are moving to open systemes that will not lock them in/down/out.
You know what kind of trusted computing I’d support?
The kind of trusted computing module that would ultimately leave the final decision to me.
A chip capable of telling (via a second comparison BIOS) that the BIOS/Bootsector has been corrupted, and would I like to restore it or overwrite the backup.
Something like that.
Mechanisms to prevent me from watching things I’ve already bought (which I doubt the RIAA and MPAA intended, so the system already doesn’t work right) irritate me greatly.
DRM (Digital Rights Management aka content protection) has been around for a long time.
This is nothing new at all.
Liberal Linux folks want you to believe that Microsoft is evil and that they are controlling everything you do. This is a scare tactic by a bunch of liberal anti-microsoft folks to scare people into getting people to leave the Microsoft Operating System.
CSS is the protection on a DVD, without this protection you cannnot watch a DVD, well a long time ago it was cracked and now DVDs can be copied and the industry is trying to slow down piracy.
In Windows Vista, it has to support the DRM protection so that you can play Blu-ray and HD-DVD movies, this protection is also on the hardware you buy at the store. Linux won’t be able to play these because it does not have the DRM protection.
Windows Vista does not use the protection if you want to use your own software to copy from the buffer (ie you want to record sounds or other media).
Just like you can copy CD’s into MP3, you can do this on Vista like you can on XP.
You are not losing any freedom.
I am not saying Windows Vista or Microsoft is perfect. I am saying that these anti-microsoft liberal people have devoted their entire lives against Microsoft and trying to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and doubt about Microsoft and their products to try to drive people into Linux and (Free as in speech) Open Source Operating Systems.
This isn’t so much about freedom as it is about power and political power.
So don’t let these people tell you lies and tell you what you must do and to dump Windows. You need to make up your own mind on what you want for your lives.
This post will get modded down, but I will keep posting it because it is the truth and it is about time the real truth is known.
You are not losing any freedom.
Well, it’s hard for MS, Intel, Hollywood etc. to beat the Patriot Act, isn’it?
I am not saying Windows Vista or Microsoft is perfect. I am saying that these anti-microsoft liberal people have devoted their entire lives against Microsoft and trying to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and doubt about Microsoft and their products to try to drive people into Linux and (Free as in speech) Open Source Operating Systems.
Sure, and once everybody uses Linux, Eric S. Raymond will crack all of our computers, and we will be assimilated, and become drones in the Penguin Empire, where we will have to do slave labour: compile kernels all day long, and solve dependency problems due to broken repositories. Then, rebels will illegally sell us copies of Windows, which will become symbols of Resistance and Freedom. But they will be suppressed with unimaginable cruelty – just as the BSD guerrilleros and the Mac perverts, naturally.
😕
This isn’t so much about freedom as it is about power and political power.
In which one of the parallel universes you inhabit does Microsoft not have “power and political power”?
BTW, I replied to you cuz you’re funny.
//I am saying that these anti-microsoft liberal people have devoted their entire lives against Microsoft and trying to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and doubt about Microsoft and their products to try to drive people into Linux and (Free as in speech) Open Source Operating Systems. //
As a Linux user and supporter, let me be as clear as I can here: I gain absolutely nothing if you use Linux instead of Windows.
I am not damaged in any way if you use Windows and not Linux. Good luck to you (your loss though).
However, I do stand to benefit if you decide to either: (1) let Microsoft know you are not happy with DRM, (2) let the movie industry know you are not happy with their efforts to infringe upon your rights, and/or (3) refuse to support the commercial success of DRM schemes by refusing to buy such content.
If you do any (or all) of (1) to (3) above, in your own interest, and many people like you decide to do the same, then there is a chance that high definition content may eventually become available on unencumbered formats. Then we would all win in the end.
Apparently there is a move afoot in China to make such a format.
Anyway, if you decide to reject DRM, we all win. If you decide to go with Vista and swallow DRM and let the big media interests dictate your rights to you, then we both lose … mostly you lose because you have paid money to lose your rights, but I too must wear some of the restrictions your acceptance of them has let into the market.
This post will get modded down, but I will keep posting it because it is the truth and it is about time the real truth is known.
No, that’s not the truth. That’s your interpretation of the truth. And that’s a big difference.
In my opinion Microsoft is just a guilty as they’ve worked togheter with the record and movie companies to co-develop these techniques. As the largest software vendor they could have said “No, this is bad for our customers, we want to make this less evil.” but instead they just happily collaborated.
And I’m pretty sure no outside companies forced Microsoft to do their work on TCPA/Paladium, that luckily wasn’t ready in time for vista.
This is getting more complex, more stupid and more anti-customer-twisted all the time.
I still have severe problems grasping what is actually intended here?
It seems that if I buy Vista rather than continue using XP I get
– The need to update drivers very often
– The possibility to maybe see HDCP content
– The need to constantly upgrade stuff as entertainment industry see fits due to possible DRM hazards of consumers.
– Have the computer work extra for “veryfying” that I own my stuff…
Somewhere along the tracks here they really lost me. If these negative sides are gonna be compensated, I’d need Office apps to write what I think rather than let me write. not gonna happen soon, neither is Vista on this box.
2007 is the year of competitors. I can’t imagine a better opportunity for all OS vendors to just step in and steal millions of customers from Windows.
The huge question in all this. When will MS lawyers, realising the loss of customers, sue RIAA/MPAA/HOllywood/Media companies.
“It seems that if I buy Vista rather than continue using XP I get”
I know it’s your main point, but what makes you think that MS cannot enable DRM like features in XP/SP3?
Microsoft can pull the plug on XP tomorrow (or force DRM enabled SP3 on you) and there’s nothing you (or anyone else) can do about it…
– Gilboa
“Microsoft can pull the plug on XP tomorrow (or force DRM enabled SP3 on you) and there’s nothing you (or anyone else) can do about it…”
Support for XP will continue, as documented on their web site, for years to come, and businesses with volume license agreements will continue to deploy new PCs running XP for at least the next three years, probably longer in substantial numbers.
No business or school is going to choose their OS platform or whether or not to pay a yearly volume license fee to Microsoft over this issue of HD video playback. It’s meaningless to Microsoft’s bottom line.
Look at XP, it doesn’t even ship with an MPEG-2 codec, so out of the box, Windows can’t even play back DVD video. They honestly don’t care, it’s a third-party market to them.
In fact, Microsoft is much more interested in getting into our family rooms, where our HD-ready TV sets are located, anyway, which is why they continue to hype of the Xbox 360 and why they are so interested in IPTV.
I can’t understand how hard it is to both be disgusted by DRM, in general, but also understand the logic (even those who hate Microsoft with the intensity of a thousand suns) behind Microsoft playing by the rules in implementing playback of HD content in Vista that abides by the law (of not letting users bypass a DRM scheme implemented by the content providers.)
Also, no one *owns* the music or video they buy, we only own the packaging and the physical media, but the content itself is still owned by the copyright holders.
Also, no one *owns* the music or video they buy, we only own the packaging and the physical media, but the content itself is still owned by the copyright holders.
Strictly speaking, in most jurisdictions, all content is public domain (owned by everyone)- copyright grants the content creator a limited duplication and distribution monopoly as part of a contract between society and creative individuals that was originally intended to strike a balance between encouraging people to be creative and innovative by giving them a financial incentive, and providing the whole of society access to creative works.
Unfortunately, copyright has been warped and twisted over the years to serve not individual artists, but rather large companies, and they have used their wealth and power to slowly pervert the original contract between artists and society by inserting themselves above both artists and society.
Ideally, copyright should be limited as follows: 1. copyright was granted for a limited period of time, say 20 years and 2. copyright was absolutely non-transferable, i.e, an artist could not sell their copyright on to a company, and instead could only allow a company to buy a licence from them, then you would find that the MPAA and RIAA would lose their teeth and go away, and DRM most likely along with it.
As for Trusted Computing, governments may soon find it to be a double edged sword, as it will allow users to encrypt their hard drives and lock down their computers so tight that the FBI and CIA et al will have bugger all chance of cracking them – this will be a massive boon to terrorists and criminals, so I would expect that any moves to push TPM chips onto general consumer PCs will be hastily withdrawn, and will backfire horribly on any government that tries to enforce it.
A smart government would ban any form of encryption available to civilians and industry outright – the potential for it to unravel society is too high. Smart citizens would elect governments that don’t kowtow to particular industry groups like the MPAA etc that are clearly trying to enforce an unreasonable monopoly on the distribution of creative works that is far in excess of what copyright was originally designed to achieve.
Ideally, copyright should be limited as follows: 1. copyright was granted for a limited period of time, say 20 years and 2. copyright was absolutely non-transferable, i.e, an artist could not sell their copyright on to a company, and instead could only allow a company to buy a licence from them, then you would find that the MPAA and RIAA would lose their teeth and go away, and DRM most likely along with it.
The second limitation is intriguing — thanks.
As for Trusted Computing, governments may soon find it to be a double edged sword, as it will allow users to encrypt their hard drives and lock down their computers so tight that the FBI and CIA et al will have bugger all chance of cracking them – this will be a massive boon to terrorists and criminals, so I would expect that any moves to push TPM chips onto general consumer PCs will be hastily withdrawn, and will backfire horribly on any government that tries to enforce it.
Of course we must go beyond the notion of the double-edged sword and weigh the pros, cons*, and the corrupt lobbying in order to predict the fate of Trusted Computing. I’m afraid the trail of money argues against your expectation of TPM being withdrawn, but I would be relieved to be wrong, of course.
A smart government would ban any form of encryption available to civilians and industry outright – the potential for it to unravel society is too high.
Again, we have here another (older) can of worms of pros and cons, and regardless of its merit this ban seems unworkable for the forseeable future.
In short, IMHO, hope for the best, expect the worst, and thanks for the insight.
—-
(*) See “Disputes and criticism of trusted computing”, along with other helpful info, in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_computing
Of course we must go beyond the notion of the double-edged sword and weigh the pros, cons*, and the corrupt lobbying in order to predict the fate of Trusted Computing. I’m afraid the trail of money argues against your expectation of TPM being withdrawn, but I would be relieved to be wrong, of course.
The thing is, software pirates who crack copy protection schemes (or simply re-digitise the analog output of music CDs etc) will then be able to safely distribute illegal copyrighted material, and lock their PCs down with a TPM chip so that authorities will be unable to prove that the pirates had illegal material on their hard drive, simply because they can’t gain access to it without the encryption keys.
I don’t think this is something that the media conglomerates have really thought through very well at all. They are just seeing dollar signs without an understanding of how seemingly small things have a ripple-on effect, and come back to you as a big wave that dumps you head first into the sand.
I am pretty sure national security agencies of many countries would prefer this technology was not available to civilians, and the Military-Industrial complex is far, far bigger than the entertainment industry, so we’ll see who wins out on this one. Only time will tell.
And if TC creates enough problems for consumers, industries that use it will get the message through loss of sales. It is not likely to be used for things that don’t need it due to the potential complications.
Actually they can’t. They have a large number of contracts that require them to support XP. Part of that high cost of boxed Vista is probably a similar support contract to the one in XP.
Besides, they’d get sued if they dropped XP support tomorrow even if those contracts didn’t exist or they just helped those customers. Even Microsoft would have trouble with a class action suit involving a couple million people for the damages of 3 years of support.
They could, and might, tack on DRM code though. According the other article posted here much of the Vista stuff was in XP as well. A lot of it only really affects high def video, and since that’s just now starting you wouldn’t have known.
Microsoft can continue to support XP on a per-contract basis (as they currently do with Windows NT 4.0).
Home users (or small corporate users) will just get the finger.
Unless something changed in the SP2 EULA, Microsoft is under not obligation to support XP after you buy it.
– Gilboa
Edited 2007-01-22 16:10
Microsoft tells the same things as Peter Gutmann does, but they put it another way, so they sound as something different.
It looks like Gutmann saying that the glass is empty and Micorsoft argues that the glass is actually not filled and that’s not the first time this happens to it.
those who claim it isnt microsoft fault are simply sad microsoft apologists.
they claim ms had no choice, were only buying intel tech, and doing what hollywood wants, pathetic.
they could simply say no, and stand up for the users, the media industry would have no choice in this matter, they simply couldnt put out encrypted media.
the vast majorify of the general population is already swallowing everything microsoft puts out, if microsoft were to publicly say “well, you cant play high def content on your pc, because the content providers has decided that you can not”, people would not even think about blaming microsoft, no that they would under any circumstances as the past 10 years has proved.
(Microsoft) could simply say no, and stand up for the users, the media industry would have no choice in this matter, they simply couldnt put out encrypted media.
This point has already been addressed at least twice in these comments already.
Only thing I’m wondering is this – when Apple also includes this stuff into OSX, are we going to see a badosx.org website spring up ? That’s right .. when you Mac users need a new HDCP monitor to view HD content, it’ll be interesting to see how iMac owners are able to pull that one off
Edited 2007-01-21 09:21
i most certainly hope you are not calling me a mac user, or any sort of apple customer at all.
but, there is a difference, osx is not really large enough for us to care about, its not in a position to do any damage, apple has NO say in this industry, therefore it makes no sense for FSF to address apple at this time, whereas as you can see, microsoft is a very real concern, they implement stuff in vista for DRM, and virtually ALL x86 hardware will cost more to support it.
I notice the same people, saying that its not Microsoft’s fault that the DRM was implemented this way.
I also find it interesting that people are happy to divert blame to bodies like MPAA or RIAA or Big Media Companies. Its pretty meaningless…its like blaming the devil *nobody is accountable*
Microsoft with its bank account of many Billions…and increasing. Will have over a Billion installs of Vista, and I’m made to believe that they couldn’t implement the scheme however they wanted, or even not at all. A company that is simply so big that they can ignore directives from the EU and its own country.
The finger is pointed squarely at Microsoft on this one. It is 100% their responsibility. The reality is why wouldn’t a company like Microsoft desperate to launch itself into the Media content supply business, with its Zune; Xbox 360; Media center; “Center of your Digital world” mentality want to do anything else. This DRM *benefits* Microsoft, and Microsoft with its Monopoly position in a major content providing platform is able to do so.
BIG MEDIA – We’ll add DRM to our new HD / Blue ray discs, we know that no one wants it, but its ours and if you don’t like it tough. It’s our IP IP IP IP IP (the sound of a stuck record)
MICROSOFT – Great we’ll support you with that – no other OS will support the HD / Blue ray discs – we can entrench our monopoly and it isn’t even our fault Yippee
BIG MEDIA & MS TOGETHER – Shame that the consumer is screwed – but hay thats just a little collateral damage, we’ve got monopolies and IP to protect.
GEEK – Mmmm I don’t think I’ll be buying any HD Blue Ray disks until libhdbluedvddecss.
mean while huge factories all over the Far East etc are tooling up to make HD content cheep and hassle free. Piracy the better option.
As a little side note to that. I’m convinced (have been for quite some time) that Both Bluray and HDVD will be a no go in the longer run (say 5 year perspective).
Me personally want large storage possibilities on my compact discs with decent RW speed. What am I talking about here? HVD ofcourse. It’s not fiction, it’s not far away, it’s working, it’s cost efficient and it simply outruns Hdvd and Bluray any day in all aspect I can think of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc
Will give you info on the techniques.
So to be honest, why even waste time or money on this “evolution shift” when HVD is just around the corner
I do not like any kind of DRM in my OS, period.
Edited 2007-01-21 12:37
Those who are hating on Microsoft over this believe that by not supporting HD-DVD and Blu-ray content playback restrictions in Vista they would have somehow forced Toshiba, Sony and the rest to go, oh, you know what, since Microsoft said no to us, I guess now we need to go back to the drawing board and take out our copy protection schemes after all. Which, of course, then the movie studios would say, um, I guess we won’t be releasing any movies on your formats from now on. Well, given that Sony has their own content, they would never be able to do that anyway. Now, the HD-DVD camp, officially backed by the Microsoft camp, could of course take the pro-consumer road and say no to DRM. Nice optical format with zero content, can’t see anyone paying $600-$1200 for that.
I totally agree with those who don’t see either HD-DVD or Blu-ray ever gaining acceptance anywhere close to DVDs, but once players, especially a dual-format player, get down to the $200 mark, whatever year that will be, a lot of movie watchers will start to rent or purchase those discs over DVDs. What Microsoft chose to support, or not support, in Vista will NOT FACTOR INTO THEIR DECISIONS on whether to buy a next-gen video player for their home theater.
I guess to those who actually never upgrade past using Windows XP, ever, because Microsoft chose to legally abide by the policies put in place in order to be able to playback HD-DVD and Blu-ray content, well, whatever makes you happy. I would say that if THIS is the final straw, then you clearly didn’t look to hard for the other 394 straws that making using a Windows NT-based PC a royal pain… at least, for those of us poor souls who support hundreds of them for a living.
Of course, from all of the CE-related news I read, I get the sense that the future (7+ years from now?) of copy-protected HD content will be streamed on-demand, not primarily sold on optical media.
The studios would like nothing more than to stop putting the content out onto discs that eventually get copied, so I’m not entirely sure how much any of them (other than Sony, who gets to double-dip in the market for profits) really would care if HD-DVD and/or Blu-ray flopped. Actually, I would have to imagine, if you asked those companies, they would have been privately thrilled if Microsoft had not even allowed either format to be played back through Vista at all.
Just my wild theory, though.
Maybe the personal computer is not a proper device to reproduce certain types of content, after all. Maybe we should use special devices (players, consoles). I mean, my toaster will not play music, but I still use it for it’s main purpose.
DG
I fail to see why Microsoft, Apple, or MPAA/RIAA should be let off the hook in any way, as some OSNews posts are doing.
All we are seeing are firms protecting their turf. It’s not even clear they are working in the best interests of investors. After all, business models face greater pressure to change nowadays, and who is to say that yesterday’s tiger is not today’s dinosaur in a tarpit? Indeed, it is nothing new to note that boycotting Vista is the kind of signal to say not “Die, Microsoft, die!” but “Microsoft, get your house in order!” A positive response to Vista is tacit approval for the disgraceful waste of billions that produced it.
Moreover, some people are victims of “What’s good for Microsoft is good for America” type of thinking. Think of how ridiculous the original “GM” that Microsoft replaced sounds now!
Copy protection does not work.