Submitted by Microsoft has been forced to acknowledge that a substantial number of PCs running the new version of its Windows operating system will not be able to play high-quality DVDs. The Vista system will be available to consumers at the end of the month. However, in an interview with The Times, one of its chief architects said that because of anti-piracy protection granted to the Hollywood studios, Vista would not play HD-DVD and Blu-ray Discs on certain PCs.
Just maybe this will encourage people not to buy the drm laden crap Hollywood seems insistent on peddling in the first place.
Edited 2007-01-09 15:03
Agreed, it just makes piracy look even more attractive than it already is.
Call me when they quit this crap so I can start buying films again.
Edited 2007-01-09 15:04
Screw Blu-ray for now. It’s too expensive – I think that I’ll wait for the prices become comparable with DVD recorders and discs. Almost everyone on the planet can live without blu-ray crap (except greedy people).
As for buying films – there are tons of cheap older movies in the malls (for example ~3.5$ to 10$ in Poland per DVD or VideoCD box).
Screw Blu-ray for now.
It’s not just Blu-ray, it’s HD-DVD too.
That said, I’ve been building a collection of DVDs for a while now…I still think it’s too early for people to switch to a new format. I know *I’m* not ready to switch, and most people I know aren’t either…
That said, I’ve been building a collection of DVDs for a while now…I still think it’s too early for people to switch to a new format. I know *I’m* not ready to switch, and most people I know aren’t either…
I mean, honestly, I have some records (yes, these old black things), I haves some cassettes, I have a lot of CDs, and a lot of DVDs. Why should I want to have something new?
Of course, these new formats like SACD, BlueRay and so on have a better quality (higher encoding rates and better encoding algorithms, better recording machines, old stuff is digitally remastered [maybe]…), but I simply cannot afford it (not to mention the new players, TVs etc. needed to really enjoy these new things) to buy a new media collection every 5 years.
And even worse, these things get more and more expensive (at least new stuff and classical non-Britney-Spears-like old stuff) and more and more “devective-by-design”
If they want me to buy their stuff, why don’t they offer me to send in my old CDs/DVDs and get new SACDs/BlueRay-discs for a few dollars?
Edited 2007-01-09 16:11
Just maybe this will encourage people not to buy the drm laden crap Hollywood seems insistent on peddling in the first place.
The average customer will think of HDCP as something they need in order to play HD content. Sales personel is going to convince them this is a “required technology”. Virtually none of the customers will realize that this is related to digital rights management — unfortunately.
Edited 2007-01-09 15:24
“The average customer will think of HDCP as something they need in order to play HD content. Sales personel is going to convince them this is a “required technology”. Virtually none of the customers will realize that this is related to digital rights management — unfortunately.”
It’s really sad and more than a little disturbing how many people these days just accept what they read and what people tell them as absolute truth. Especially when it comes to media sound bites. Can we not think for ourselves anymore; ask questions or do research? People actually think that when they finish school they don’t have anything left to learn. We’re living in a land of lemmings. People who are easy to sway and control.
> Sales personel is going to convince them this is a “required technology”.
That’s a really nasty play on the semantics…
It’s not required as in “needed” technically. It’s more “mandatory” because they want it so. That’s what is the twist ppl need to understand to be freed from it.
It’s really some kind of FUD in the end.
Right on man! DRM is the worst thing to ever happen to the computer world, ever.
It is basically not a problem with those PCs it is a problem with the choice of Graphics Card and Monitor.
It is the same with any HD-DVD or BlueRay Player/Monitor/System not only with computers and it is known since the beginning.
“HD Televisions” won’t work either without an drm protected channel. Some “HD Ready” displays sold are already incompatible.
It is the fault of the content mafia. Macs will suffer from the same problem once they have HD-DVD/BlueRay options. Linux most likely will be left out all together.
Someone should crack this drm crap, but from what i have read about it, it will be much harder this time (yes, i’m aware about muslix64, but his solution is not a final one).
It’d probably be better in the long run if they didn’t crack it.
It’d probably be better in the long run if they didn’t crack it.
Why? I am happy this DVD CSS encryption system has been cracked. For 2 reasons:
1. I want to be able to watch legally bought DVDs on my Linux machine.
2. I hate this region code thing. I want to be free to watch DVDs from amazon.com as well as DVDs from amazon.co.uk and amazon.de.
Because it’ll help sales of the format that gets cracked and give the industry an excuse to create even more intrusive DRM. Things will never get better following that path.
If the industry refuses to support your needs, why are you still supporting them?
I want to be able to watch legally bought DVDs on my Linux machine.
You hit it. We want the freedom to use the operating system and/or player of our choice without being dictated to by the movie industry.
It is the same with any HD-DVD or BlueRay Player/Monitor/System not only with computers and it is known since the beginning.
The news is that MS previously said that Blu-Ray/HD-DVD would play on *all* Vista PCs. Also, it’s not the hardware that’s responsible…it’s Vista that shuts out the signal if the PC doesn’t have HDCP.
MS could have used its monopoly position to do good this time, by lobbying against the DRM Mafia’s efforts, but it didn’t.
“Dave Marsh, the lead program manager for video at Microsoft, said that if the PC used a digital connection to link with the monitor or television, then it would require the highest level of content protection, known as HDCP, to play the discs. If it did not have such protection, Vista would shut down the signal, he said.”
The news is that MS previously said that Blu-Ray/HD-DVD would play on *all* Vista PCs.
Please provide evidence of this as I guarantee you they never said this.
Also, it’s not the hardware that’s responsible…it’s Vista that shuts out the signal if the PC doesn’t have HDCP.
Vista acts on behalf of applications checking whether necessary conditions are met to display their content. It has no direct say in whether or not content is output.
MS could have used its monopoly position to do good this time, by lobbying against the DRM Mafia’s efforts, but it didn’t.
A fight they would lose given the exact same protections are mandated in the standards and provided on standalone devices. The choice is to participate in the ecosystem and have content on the PC or not and be shut out like the situation with SACD.
Please provide evidence of this as I guarantee you they never said this.
“It is up to the ISVs providing playback solutions to determine whether the intended playback environment, including environments with a 32-bit CPU, meets the performance requirements to allow high-definition playback while supporting the guidelines set forth by the content owners,” Microsoft PR manager Adam Anderson said in a statement. “No version of Windows Vista will make a determination as to whether any given piece of content should play back or not.”
http://news.com.com/2061-10794_3-6109427.html
Basically, MS said that it would be up to the applications to determine if the content can be played or not, and that the OS wouldn’t have anything to do with it. Now we learn differently.
But please feel free to continue with your damage control efforts.
Basically, MS said that it would be up to the applications to determine if the content can be played or not, and that the OS wouldn’t have anything to do with it. Now we learn differently.
And how has that changed? It is up to the application to enable the protections the ISV deems necessary to playback whatever content they want. Vista does not control this. Re-read the quote you provided and re-read the Channel 9 link and quote I provided.
Better yet, I’ll just provide the link and quote here:
He’s absolutely sharp. No question. He’s also absolutely wrong.
Here’s what happens (more or less). When a playback application wishes to render high quality content, it asks the system what the capabilities of the output rendering path are. The OS tells it things like “All the drivers on the system are signed”, or “The video is going over an HDMI connection”, “All the code running in the rendering path is running in the protected environment (and thus contains no unsigned 3rd party code)”, etc. The playback application than uses that information to make decisions on how to play back the content. It might decide it’s ok to play the content. It might refuse to play the content. It might decide to downgrade the content.
All these choices are up to the PLAYBACK APPLICATION. They’re NOT built into the OS. All the OS does is to provide services to the playback application that it can use to make decisions.
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=269369#269369
Edited 2007-01-09 22:00
Okay, so a poster in an Internet forum repeats what was said earlier, that it is the application that controls it, and not the OS.
And yet, from the article:
“Dave Marsh, the lead program manager for video at Microsoft, said that if the PC used a digital connection to link with the monitor or television, then it would require the highest level of content protection, known as HDCP, to play the discs. If it did not have such protection, Vista would shut down the signal, he said.”
The lead program manager clearly states that “Vista would shut down the signal.” Vista, as in the OS, not the media playing application. Are you taking the word of a poster on a web site over the lead program manager for video at Microsoft?
I mean, if the Times article is wrong, then that’s all for the better. But you’ll have to provide more than a forum posting in order to prove that it is.
Edited 2007-01-09 22:23
Okay, so a poster in an Internet forum repeats what was said earlier, that it is the application that controls it, and not the OS.
He’s not just a poster. He’s part of the Windows team.
The lead program manager clearly states that “Vista would shut down the signal.” Vista, as in the OS, not the media playing application. Are you taking the word of a poster on a web site over the lead program manager for video at Microsoft?
The program manager was not quoted for that statement. He was paraphrased. The facts are stated by Larry Osterman, i.e., the application controls whether the signal is shut down.
I mean, if the Times article is wrong, then that’s all for the better. But you’ll have to provide more than a forum posting in order to prove that it is.
The forum posting carries more weight given it’s the direct writings of a developer on the team, and not text a reporter made up rather than providing an actual quote. The only actual quote of Marsh provided in the article is:
“It’s up to the content providers to set the level of protection that Vista applies, but they’re likely to be pretty firm on the need to use high-definition content protection [HDCP] when using a digital connection,” Mr Marsh said. “At the moment HD DVD and Blu-ray Discs certainly require such protection.”
This does not contradict either Osterman’s post or the previous statements in the News.com article posted in this thread. The application developers control what Vista does based on the protections required for a particular piece of content.
He’s part of the Windows team.
Is he part of the Video team? It is possible that he was simply repeating the information that was previously stated.
This does not contradict either Osterman’s post or the previous statements in the News.com article posted in this thread.
Actually, it does. Read it again (my emphasis):
“It’s up to the content providers to set the level of protection that Vista applies, but they’re likely to be pretty firm on the need to use high-definition content protection [HDCP] when using a digital connection,” Mr Marsh said. “At the moment HD DVD and Blu-ray Discs certainly require such protection.”
So unless you have insider information that this is not truly the case, I will take the most recent declaration, which seems to support the fact that it is indeed the OS that applies DRM here, and not the application.
I’m not saying that the article isn’t wrong, but until there’s a further statement from Microsoft about this, I won’t just assume that the reporter misunderstood AND misquoted the lead programmer of the video team.
Is he part of the Video team? It is possible that he was simply repeating the information that was previously stated.
The team (Windows Audio Video Excellence (WAVE) team)covers audio and video. He worked on the audio system.
Here’s his blog:
http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/default.aspx
Actually, it does. Read it again (my emphasis):
“It’s up to the content providers to set the level of protection that Vista applies, but they’re likely to be pretty firm on the need to use high-definition content protection [HDCP] when using a digital connection,” Mr Marsh said. “At the moment HD DVD and Blu-ray Discs certainly require such protection.”
Vista applies the protections on the behalf of the application.
So unless you have insider information that this is not truly the case, I will take the most recent declaration, which seems to support the fact that it is indeed the OS that applies DRM here, and not the application.
There’s no need for insider information. Documentation is available on Microsoft.com.
Assuming an ISV wants to playback protected content, they can use the Media Foundation APIs to access Windows Vista’s Protected Media Environment. Windows Vista provides a protected environment for media playback that includes running sensitive code in a protected process. This protected environment is requested by the application. To setup this environment, applicable drivers must be signed by Microsoft (or by the vendor w/ an MS cert) w/ an attribute certifying their use with the protected environment. ISVs also provide components such as codecs and their DRM implementation which run within the protected environment. These must also be signed.
Third-Party Formats or Content Protection Technologies
In addition to providing built-in support for Windows Media Format and Windows Media Digital Rights Management, Media Foundation is designed to meet the content protection robustness requirements of next-generation premium content. If you provide premium content in a third-party format or use a custom or industry-standard content-protection technology, you should build custom components using Media Foundation. The types of components that you might create include:
Media source. A media source introduces media data into the pipeline, similar to a source filter in DirectShow.
Input trust authority (ITA). An ITA encapsulates the content protection technology for a media source. An ITA might define rights, enable license acquisition, and decrypt the content.
Media Foundation Transform (MFT). An MFT is a component that processes a media stream, similar to a transform filter. Write MFTs for your encoders, stream parsers, demultiplexers, and so forth—anything that manipulates the bits in the stream.
Media sink. A media sink receives data, processes it, and delivers it to a destination, similar to a renderer filter in DirectShow.
Output trust authority (OTA). An OTA enables protected content to reach its intended destination securely. The OTA enforces any output protection mechanisms that are needed.
With these objects in place, you can plug into the Media Foundation Protected Media Path so that your content works seamlessly within the Media Foundation pipeline.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dn…
To help ISVs determine how to handle playback of next-generation premium content, Windows Vista exposes a list of the unsigned drivers on the system. It is up to the ISV to determine whether to enable playback.
…
PMP-PE enforcement does not stop devices from working.
The PMP PE Authority can stop the flow of data to media applications, but it does not disable the DVD drive or the hard disk.
Playback of premium content requires that only identified drivers be loaded on the system.
When new premium content is loaded on a Windows Vista system, several checks are required to ensure the safety of the system. One check is for the presence of an identified kernel. When requested, the PMP performs this check by verifying that all kernel modules that are loaded on the system have been signed by a source that Microsoft trusts. If this verification fails, the PMP halts playback of that content and sends a message to the media application that includes information to help resolve the issue.
Existing content is not affected by the PMP requirements.
Users can continue to play existing content such as recorded television, standard definition DVDs, or MP3s. The policies that control the use of existing content are not affected by the new requirements for premium content.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlogo/drvsign/Pmp-sign.mspx
A sample of the application interaction using protected ASF files is included here (look for “Overview of Policy Negotiation”):
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa376846.aspx
Vista applies the protections on the behalf of the application.
That’s what you’re saying, but that not what the article said.
Assuming an ISV wants to playback protected content, they can use the Media Foundation APIs to access Windows Vista’s Protected Media Environment. Windows Vista provides a protected environment for media playback that includes running sensitive code in a protected process. This protected environment is requested by the application.
It seems to me that the protected environment is requested by the content provider.
Why doesn’t the application simply refuse to display the information? It says, “the PMP PE Authority can stop the flow of data to media applications”…but why does it need to stop the flow? Why doesn’t the application simply refuse to play it?
I’m sorry, but I’m not convinced. I’ll wait until an actual MS employee clarifies this.
Edited 2007-01-10 03:49
It seems to me that the protected environment is requested by the content provider.
I guess you could say the format owners control whether the ISV can use their app to playback their content. In the case of HD-DVD/BluRay, some of the owners are also content providers, but some providers that don’t have control over the format may also distribute content in the format without restrictions or with a different set, hence the distinction.
The actual construct is requested by the application when it calls specific APIs in the Media Foundation. However, to work in the PE, relevant application components, OS components, and drivers all have to be signed, certifying their use in the PE. Signing is how the OS ensures all components relevant to the PE are trusted.
HD-DVD/BluRay also have licensing and certification processes outside of Windows that player makers must undergo. For instance, IIRC, the players (PC or standalone) need to get keys from whatever licensing authority they use.
For someone using their own format that they create. (say Free-DRM 😉 ), they’d only need to get the components signed by MS to enable their use with the PE, and depending on how their DRM works, may be able to 1) have an algorithm that ISVs can just conform to (and get their respective components signed), or 2) distribute their reference components for use in other players. It’s the existance of the PE attribute in the signature that allows them to use the PE with their format.
Why doesn’t the application simply refuse to display the information? It says, “the PMP PE Authority can stop the flow of data to media applications”…but why does it need to stop the flow? Why doesn’t the application simply refuse to play it?
The application runs in a seperate process from the PE (which runs in a protected process) where the media decoding/transform/output takes place, so it basically just sends messages to the PE and gets messages from the PE. The PE uses the policy set in the ITA/OTA provided by the ISV to determine what to do with the content as it flows through the pipeline.
I’m sorry, but I’m not convinced. I’ll wait until an actual MS employee clarifies this.
No problem.
Basically, MS said that it would be up to the applications to determine if the content can be played or not, and that the OS wouldn’t have anything to do with it. Now we learn differently.
And how has that changed? It is up to the application to enable the protections the ISV deems necessary to playback whatever content they want. Vista does not control this. Re-read the quote you provided and re-read the Channel 9 link and quote I provided.
I assume that WMP will be doing playback of HD-DVD & Blu-ray discs in some cases. If this is the case (and playback’s not restricted to those rubbishy third-party apps that come with drives) then given WMP’s bundled with the OS (making, it in my opinion, part of the OS), then the OS will be making these decisions, since the playback application will be a part of the base OS.
As for the apps making these decisions, here’s hoping ReactOS (or WINE) achieves enough compatibility to run some of these players, so we can just give them false information about the security of the data path
It is basically not a problem with those PCs it is a problem with the choice of Graphics Card and Monitor.
Wrong
DRM that requires special hardware is the problem.
…about Vista and DRM.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/28/vista_drm_analysis/
I like the term the author coins, about DRM being “Vista’s Suicide Bomb”…
This ISN’T Vista DRM, it is BlueRay and HD-DVD DRM.
Stop being such a drone and actually think for yourself.
It comes down to two choices really. Either Microsoft can support HD abd BlueRay (which REQUIRES HDCP support), or they do not support these technologies.
Any OS that chooses to support HD and BlueRay will be required to have the SAME exact DRM.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
it’s really Vista. there is nobody who forces MS to have this kind of DRM. It’s what Hollywood et al wants.
You say it yourself “any OS that chooses….”
Indeed suicide for Vista. Sometimes, suicide isn’t that bad after all.
That’s just it, you can’t blame Microsoft for wanting to support these formats, blame the Content providers, or better yet, blame the theives!
So, using you logic…..
If I buy a DVD from the US, watch it here in the UK on my Linux system using DeCSS. I am I theif ?
Get a clue sir.
No, you get a clue, I said nothing like that, AT ALL.
You get a clue that just because I said don’t blame Microsoft for this that I must be wrong and you made up some wild and crazy idea that I never even said.
The theives are the ones downloading movies without paying for them.
The theives are the ones providing the downloadable forms of these movies ILLEGALLY.
Yes, you can blame the theives that DRM even exists.
And you can blame content providers for going WAY overboard on said DRM.
“Yes, you can blame the theives that DRM even exists.”
If you really believe that DRM exists to just combat ‘copyright infringement’ (yes, that’s what it is, despite your attempts to liken it to burglary or robbery) then you must be incredibly naieve.
DRM is about screwing more money out customers by way of control over supply. We haven’t quite got there yet, but it’s only a matter of time before we are coerced into a subscription model (where DRM switches off access to your content until you hand over more money). That is the *REAL* point of DRM.
Companies hate the fact that you can buy something and then be happy with it for years. They want you to buy, buy and then buy again (even if it’s exactly the same thing, but just on another format). At the moment they have no means to compel customers to do that, but DRM is the means by which they will achieve this end.
You only have to look at Microsoft to see how this is playing out. It starts off with simple “activation” for Windows XP, then in Vista it gets a bit more bite, with the ability to disable your OS (“reduced functionality” ) if it suspects that your licence is not legitimate. Couple this with WGA / WPA (which starts off as an incentive and slowly becomes compulsory) and it’s just a matter of time before the “kill switch” becomes a reality and you are totally at the mercy of the content provider.
If your OS refuses to function because it is deemed a “security risk” due to it being “out of date” then you have no choice but to upgrade. But this situation can not arise without the necessary locking mechansims in place (hence DRM).
DRM would have happened regardless. Copyright infringers are just a handy excuse to use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.
By the way, piracy is not theft. It’s copyright violation. And it’s not the act of downloading that is illegal, but the act of uploading.
By using the incorrect terms for this you are playing right into the hands of those who want to control what *you* can do with *your* computer.
I blame MS for not even trying to side with consumers. I don’t expect you to blame MS for anything, anytime, under any circumstances.
Edited 2007-01-09 21:29
I believe downloading is illegal too it’s just harder to catch those who only download.
Actually, it isn’t. You only commit a copyright violation if you illegally redistribute the IP. Of course, if you are notified that you downloaded IP that was illegally distributed, you’ll have to destroy your copy – however you yourself won’t be guilty of anything.
Why do you think the RIAA targets file sharers? That’s because they know they can’t actually touch leechers.
Yes, I reread you original post again, I did jump to the wrong conclusion. sorry.
Now, back to DRM.
I do not totally blame the thieves for stealing content. I blame the content providers for artificially keeping the costs high.
I blame Microsoft for ramming it down peoples throats. If Microsoft had put its foot down in the first place, there would not have been all this whining about rights in the first place.
TO THE CONTENT PROVIDERS…….
If I spend my cash buying a film from you, I can use it how I please, I will not listen to you when you tell me what I can or cannot do with my purchase, I own it now. It is mine to do as I please, if I want to play it on my linux pc, so what ? if I want to make a backup copy on my pc, so what ? I can even rip it to .3gp to play on my phone, so what ?
I can do these things because I live in the EU, and we have a thing called a “fair usage policy”. US based content providers should read up on these things :p
“The theives are the ones downloading movies without paying for them.”
That would be nearly correct if (1) the downloaded file is an exact copy of the original movie data and (2) the person who downloads it does not own the movie legally.
In any other case that does not conform to (1) and (2) it won’t be a problem.
If you take a 4,7 GB DVD and rip it to a 650 MB VCD it’s definitely not a copy, because it’s not identical in essential parts. For example, it lacks quality, subtitles, or different languages. Everyone who really likes a quality movie will buy the original if he liked the ripped low-quality pseudocopy.
“The theives are the ones providing the downloadable forms of these movies ILLEGALLY.”
No, they can always use the famous disclaimer: “You may only download it if … (1) … and … (2)…” (see above).
“Yes, you can blame the theives that DRM even exists.”
No, you can’t. As mentioned above, DRM is a nice way of pressing money out of customers without offering anything, or, like done by the famous Mafia: “If you pay us money, we won’t harm you.”
Finally, may I suggest a simple thinking game? If I have $100 in my pocket and somebody takes it, it’s gone. If I upload $100.txt on a file server and someone downloads the file, the file is still there. So I can’t complain, nobody can.
The term “thief” is very bad… the legal definition of thievery does not fit here. Piracy, if taken literally, is even more bad, because it includes the threat of violence.
Or I can blame MS and the electronic industry for not growing a pair and fighting against this DRM crap. Of course MS would never do that because they’re invested in DRM. Maybe they don’t want to go to the lengths the **AA want them to (how much of Vista’s developement time was spent on this ‘protected path’ crap) but make no mistake that they don’t like DRM.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
it’s really Vista. there is nobody who forces MS to have this kind of DRM. It’s what Hollywood et al wants.
It is Hollywood that forces MS and everyone else that wants premium content to provide the necessary protections. Regarding your link:
“All these choices are up to the PLAYBACK APPLICATION. They’re NOT built into the OS. All the OS does is to provide services to the playback application that it can use to make decisions.”
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=269369#269369
It is Hollywood that forces MS and everyone else that wants premium content
Microsoft is not being forced into anything, but I am surprised that Microsoft thinks this is the way forward.
Microsoft’s business model and their hope to get computers used more as home entertainment devices can only happen if there is a flow of free, or very cheap, content. This means people being able to copy their content around, copy it for friends and a certain amount of piracy. Without that, Vista and any home entertainment device they come up with is essentially useless to everyone because the average person just doesn’t have the amount of content that makes this remotely useful.
Microsoft is not being forced into anything, but I am surprised that Microsoft thinks this is the way forward.
Then maybe a better terminology is “required”. In short, anyone that wants premium content is required to provide mechanisms to protect the content.
Microsoft’s business model and their hope to get computers used more as home entertainment devices can only happen if there is a flow of free, or very cheap, content. This means people being able to copy their content around, copy it for friends and a certain amount of piracy.
And this can and is still being accomplished through common DRM implimentations or compatible bridges between them. You can copy or stream most protected content between MCEs, Home Servers, Extenders, other PCs, and in-home or mobile devices. The actual limits are in the hands of the providers, but the user still has a lot of flexibility with protected content from providers that don’t go overboard.
I’m sure that a company that is prepared to ignore the European Government cannot stand up to a few media companies.
The reality is Microsoft *is* and *has* a lot to gain from supporting any DRM on its platform. It wants its codec as standard. It wants to sell Music and Video content to use with its music player, multimedia center(xbox), home server!?
I don’t even know why anyone would try to defend Microsoft, a company with everything to gain and nothing to lose from implementing DRM on this scale.
When hardware becomes cheap enough and readily available the Microsoft faithful will be back talking about “choice of having a platform that supports DRM”
I’m sure that a company that is prepared to ignore the European Government cannot stand up to a few media companies.
Yeah because that’s totally related to this topic and the EC never made any boneheaded rulings…
The reality is Microsoft *is* and *has* a lot to gain from supporting any DRM on its platform. It wants its codec as standard. It wants to sell Music and Video content to use with its music player, multimedia center(xbox), home server!?
Microsoft gains from their being a standard so they don’t have to implement every DRM spec under the sun. They gain consumers by ensuring Windows continues to be able to playback the media their customers want. Digital cable, HD-DVD, BluRay, et al., is all available or coming to the Windows platform because Microsoft implemented equivalent standards for content protection that are already available in every standalone consumer device on the market that plays the same content. They gain from having that content available, not by being shut out and eventually being useless as a media/entertainment platform.
I don’t even know why anyone would try to defend Microsoft, a company with everything to gain and nothing to lose from implementing DRM on this scale.
It’s because of Microsoft that Managed Copy exists on next-gen formats. They have more to lose in time and resources that could’ve been spent on other things than they have to gain from constantly negotiating with the entertainment industry for the rights to participate in that ecosystem. Other than currently being the only computing platform with access to HD, cable, IPTV, and soon other media, the direct benefit they’ve gotten from DRM is it’s repurposing for document security.
When hardware becomes cheap enough and readily available the Microsoft faithful will be back talking about “choice of having a platform that supports DRM”
And you do have choice. MS DRM is licensed to anyone and many devices across the consumer electronics landscape support it either directly or interop with it via technology bridges, unlike Apple where they’re the sole source provider of FairPlay.
“Yeah because that’s totally related to this topic and the EC never made any boneheaded rulings… ”
It *is* relevant as an example Microsoft considering itself *Answerable to nobody* and I use it as such. We all know what went on with Microsoft and EC. We all know who was in the wrong, but I think this comment shows some out of place passion on your behalf.
“Microsoft gains from their being a standard so they don’t have to implement every DRM spec under the sun.”
WOW just WOW.
“They gain consumers by ensuring Windows continues to be able to playback the media their customers want”
Clearly you have not read the article.
“It’s because of Microsoft that Managed Copy exists on next-gen formats. They have more to lose in time and resources that could’ve been spent on other things than they have to gain from constantly negotiating with the entertainment industry for the rights to participate in that ecosystem. Other than currently being the only computing platform with access to HD, cable, IPTV, and soon other media, the direct benefit they’ve gotten from DRM is it’s repurposing for document security. ”
I’m glad that you are saying that Vista was delayed due to DRM
“And you do have choice. MS DRM is licensed to anyone and many devices across the consumer electronics landscape support it either directly or interop with it via technology bridges, unlike Apple where they’re the sole source provider of FairPlay.”
Could you point me where I can use any Microsoft Formats Legally/Patent Free. I have my credit card out on my desk.
It *is* relevant as an example Microsoft considering itself *Answerable to nobody* and I use it as such. We all know what went on with Microsoft and EC. We all know who was in the wrong, but I think this comment shows some out of place passion on your behalf.
Offering a defense is not being *Answerable to nobody*. Constraining the development of MS’ product with more concern for incompetant competitors than actual consumers is boneheaded. No passion required.
WOW just WOW
Blows your mind that by providing a common platform, protected media can still be portable, eh?
Clearly you have not read the article.
Clearly you should check out the CES coverage vs. the current situation with digital cable, sattelite, HD, SACD, DVD-A, et al. You gain content with Vista. You can either use it to get new content, use a standalone device, or use nothing at all.
Could you point me where I can use any Microsoft Formats Legally/Patent Free. I have my credit card out on my desk.
If you have the money, you may license the technology. The license allows you to use it legally. The patents are granted for the implementation/use of said technology as part of the license. No different than the formats which the technology protects. If you’re a user, the developer of the product that uses the technology has already paid for this license, allowing you to freely use the technology with protected content.
“Offering a defense is not being *Answerable to nobody*. Constraining the development of MS’ product with more concern for incompetant competitors than actual consumers is boneheaded. No passion required.”
The ruling was nothing about development.
“Blows your mind that by providing a common platform, protected media can still be portable, eh?”
No it blows my mind that anyone supports any kind of lock-in making them the only platform.
“Clearly you should check out the CES coverage vs. the current situation with digital cable, sattelite, HD, SACD, DVD-A, et al. You gain content with Vista. You can either use it to get new content, use a standalone device, or use nothing at all. ”
I read the article it says I can’t play next gen content *even* with Vista without replacing my whole PC.
“If you have the money, you may license the technology. The license allows you to use it legally. The patents are granted for the implementation/use of said technology as part of the license. No different than the formats which the technology protects. If you’re a user, the developer of the product that uses the technology has already paid for this license, allowing you to freely use the technology with protected content.”
So *No* then, credit card *still* on the table.
I’m sorry, did you say something? I had trouble hearing you with all that foaming at the mouth…
MS could have used its market weight in this, but decided not to.
Oh well, I’ll just wait until this particular DRM scheme is cracked to watch these on my Linux PC. 🙂
if Microsoft chose not to support HD and Blu-ray, those 2 will have no chance at taking off. Microsoft is giving them a chance to win.
Unlikely.
This stuff is already in the market, the consumers are already buying the products, etc…
Now could Microsft have started or been apart of some sort of anti-HDCP consortium BEFORE this stuff came to market? Sure, but you know what, no one else was apart of one either.
The only thing that could have stopped HD-DVD and BlueRay adoption is anti-DRM Ad campaigns before this stuff was available. Let the consumers know what was going on before this stuff was in the stores, etc…
This is not correct. There is no technical need for HDCP for HD content. The need is a purely fictional one, but one the content mafia was able to push down the hardware/software manufactors throats.
So what are the implications? I guess Apples will play this type of content withut having implemented ’tilt’ bits? Or will they also have to have those??
How about Linux? Can HD-DVD’s and Blu-ray’s be played on Linux at all? (Sorry, still ignorant about all this…)
to even play HD DVD/Blu-ray movies. So it’s not a problem for me. My next PC will be ready out-of-the-box to play those.
http://www.cyberlink.com/english/support/bdhd_support/system_requir…
Emmmm, was that supposed to be a boast, or were you just admitting you are a sheep, and you need to upgrade your pc in order to play them ?
He meant that because his own PC doesn’t have the required CPU power to do the MPEG-4(/VC-1/H.264) decoding which is necessary to watch a high-res movie, he doesn’t mind that his computer doesn’t support the DRM.
When he replaces his computer with one which *will* have the raw power to display the video, his new computer will also support HDCP. Therefore, there will be no problems.
Still annoying for everybody else, though.
I can’t understand why a company would willingly limit it’s own product and there by limit its customers. Just because Hollywood wants to retain control of there ancient distribution method does not mean that Microsoft have to play ball at the detriment of there users.
When DVD region coding came out, every DVD player in my country (Luxembourg) was region 2 only. The government did nothing about this originally until people started kicking up a fuss. Today, all shops must provided region code free players or they get fined.
If the Luxembourg government can do this, and they are alot smaller than some corporations, than why cant Microsoft?
HD-DVD’s AACSS has already been cracked. It’s only a matter of time until the same is true with Blu-Ray.
Hollywood thinks they can stop piracy. What fools they are. All the DRM crap in the world can’t stop people from pulling out their HD digital camcorders and HD projectors and recording movies in real-time.
They should just stop the DRM crap alltogether. I doubt it makes the slightest difference to piracy, only irritates lawful consumers like ourselves.
Everything man made can be cracked and the sooner or later will be cracked.
Don’t they realise this is a fight they can never win? No copy protection method in history has ever been successful, from hardware dongles to Macrovision to CSS to Apple’s hilariously ill-named “FairPlay” DRM.
If Apple were (allowed) to switch to offering DRM-free MP3s from the ITMS tomorrow, do you think they’d lose any sales? Of course not. In fact, sales would probably go up, as people with non-iPod digital music players could use it too. And it’s no good arguing that this would lead to an increase in piracy; virtually every song ever recorded is already available on the P2P networks as an MP3.
There must be people smart enough at either Apple or the record companies to realise this. I guess it’s the the top-level execs who are still stuck in the stone age.
As to today’s news, we all know very well that Microsoft only ever does things that are in Microsoft’s interest. Other than a few governments, Microsoft is probably the only organisation on earth with the muscle to say “we think this HDCP nonsense is completely over the top, and we’re not going to implement it”. They haven’t done so, and instead have spent millions of dollars in “protecting” Vista from its users. To think that they’ve deliberately gone to great lengths to ensure that I won’t be allowed to watch HD movies on my lovely new (DVI-connected) flat-panel monitor is maddening.
I really hope it comes back to bite them on the ass.
After all this money is spent to prevent copying or what have you people most likely will not start going and buying enough new “legal” copies of any given movie to cause a noticeable increase in profits for the movie industry. It’s almost like these guys have the mentality the average working Joe is out to get a paycheck so he can get the latest new release. Give me a break.
A recent study by the Motion Picture Association estimated that illegal copying cost the industry $6.1 billion in 2005
I wonder how much of that $6.1 billion was spent trying to prevent little Joey from copying the dvd his mom rented for him at blockbuster. In other words, I wonder how much of that $6.1 billion Microsoft et al. got for researching and developing this technology because I have a hard time believing 100 little Joey’s or HackerMike’s cost the MPA $6.1 billion by copying a dvd they rented, borrowed or (insert your copying excuse) but would have never bought to begin with. I guess what they really mean to say is “Our statistics show that we could have made an additional $6.1 billion if more people gave a damn enough to buy our movies in the first place.”
AFAIK, the original reasoning behind region encoding was the fear that people would no longer visit the cinema when a new release came out. They would just buy the DVD which often comes out in the states before the movie is released say in Europe.
But if you listen to what allot of critics in the movie industry say, the main reason why people don’t go to the cinema anymore is not because of high-quality home entertainment but low-quality movie released. Even Hollywood executives have been quoted as saying such.
Just goes to show you that you don’t have to be an ostrich…
My PC does support HDCP due to the GFX card. But I will not be purchasing HD-DVD/Blue ray movies until they sort it out.
It has put me off Vista as well. If a program like PowerDVD did all the DRM its OK. Building it into the OS is over the top IMHO.
I don’t feel like jumping through hoops today.
I doubt whether very many people will care, considering that they will probably be watching DVDs. Those who didn’t know what they were buying will probably be sending the so called HD disc back.
However, I wouldn’t put much faith in HD discs working reliably in a modern PC either. The amount of stuff in the Windows DRM sub-system that has to agree before any so called premium content will even play is absolutely mind boggling. We can barely get some stuff to work in the IT world when all the stars are aligned, let alone when a system has code in it that will actively stop your system from working. Get a taster of it here:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
Basically, the OS needs to verify the graphics card, monitor and every single piece of hardware along the way, and around the sides. S/PDIF is disabled when playing premium content, would you believe?
I don’t know about you, but for everyone out there who is totally unaware of what’s going to happen in their new PC, and worse, is totally unaware of even HD content, they’re in for a lovely non-functioning surprise.
Oh, and remember. The DVD format only really took off in scale once people realised that the encryption had been broken, films could be copied, and production of recordable DVD media really took off as a result and accelerated the purchase of DVD machines in turn. The same went for VHS that preceded it. I wouldn’t exactly say this was a way that will make either format take off.
Basically, the OS needs to verify the graphics card, monitor and every single piece of hardware along the way, and around the sides. S/PDIF is disabled when playing premium content, would you believe?
If you check the link I provided in the post above yours, you’ll find that article to to be false. Output protections are application controlled, and for HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, etc., S/PDIF would not be disabled because it is necessary for output of PCM or DD/DTS. The higher quality lossless formats (TrueHD, et al.) can’t be output over S/PDIF anyway as they take too much bandwidth.
If you check the link I provided in the post above yours, you’ll find that article to to be false. Output protections are application controlled
Your attempt to lump this all on to the content provider is laughable in the extreme, but represents the perfect party line that Microsoft is taking ;-). The fact of the matter is that when a content provider specifies something, it is Vista which will block the user from watching or listening to something on their computer.
The article is not false, it’s just that you simply do not understand it, or want to paint over what it actually means.
From your link:
All these choices are up to the PLAYBACK APPLICATION. They’re NOT built into the OS. All the OS does is to provide services to the playback application that it can use to make decisions.
Absolutely false. The playback application, via Vista, will make a decision to restrict playback of content on the user’s own computer and Vista will jump and carry out that order.
It doesn’t get around the fact that the capability for stopping that is in the OS. It’s that simple, and it’s a pretty feeble response.
S/PDIF would not be disabled because it is necessary for output of PCM or DD/DTS.
S/PDIF has enough for two channels of PCM and compressed multichannel. For so called premium content, it could easily be downmixed for those who’ve spent good money on a nice sound system as well as through HDMI, but it won’t be.
The higher quality lossless formats (TrueHD, et al.)
Whether they make a difference to anyone but audiophiles is yet to be tested.
Edited 2007-01-09 23:08
Your attempt to lump this all on to the content provider is laughable in the extreme, but represents the perfect party line that Microsoft is taking ;-). The fact of the matter is that when a content provider specifies something, it is Vista which will block the user from watching or listening to something on their computer.
At the request of the application, not outside of it. That’s the key point. If the application developer is using content that requires no protections, the media plays unprotected, i.e., if you have HD content that is unprotected for whatever reason, Vista will happily play it without adding protections.
For protected content, Vista does not decide what actions to take for that content, the ISV does based on the requirerments they must offer for the particular media they support. In the case of HD-DVD/BluRay, if either consortium or AACS demands that ISVs only output over protected paths, ISVs must implement that or break their agreements with the consortiums. Vista follows what the app developer tells it. It does not act on its own. Simple facts.
S/PDIF has enough for two channels of PCM and compressed multichannel. For so called premium content, it could easily be downmixed for those who’ve spent good money on a nice sound system as well as through HDMI, but it won’t be.
It is downmixed (or a DD/DTS track is included for compatibility). If you’re satisfied w/ compressed, lossy audio, fine, you have that choice. Again, S/PDIF is not disabled. Many buying HD formats will choose uncompressed/losslessly compressed, multichannel tracks.
Back in the good old days of Vinyl records, the idea of copying your music from one device to another and sharing those copies around didn’t exist. If you bought an LP and you scratched it, tough luck, you need to buy another one. Record companies were pretty comfortable with this arrangement. At the same time vinyl was popular, the only way to see a movie was to go to the cinema, or if you were loaded with cash, you could get one of those fancy new VCR thingies. The idea of copying films was not on the agenda.
Now there is no technical barrier to copying music or digital video ad infinitum, and record companies and film companies have only one option to protect their old business model: make any modern media for music or video as un-copyable as LPs and film.
Now, arguments about whether or not the recording and film industry should be able to pursue this path or not aside, the technical overheads of running all of this stuff in the background, and the potential to bork things up is what concerns me. I have absolutely no interest in playing HDDVD or Bluray discs on my PC, and I see absolutely nothing worth gaining from High Definition content that current DVD and audio CD formats don’t already (I personally think HD content will be a massive flop – most people are quite content with the current resolution of DVDs and CDs, and are unlikely to be able to tell the difference from normal viewing distances or on the average speaker system).
If Vista is going to be doing all kinds of pointless polling of my hardware, even when I am only likely to use Bluray or HDDVD discs for backup purposes, and it makes my system less stable and reliable, then I would be somewhat reluctant to use it. But if it is simply a system that is there for software that plays this HD content, and does nothing otherwise, the I don’t forsee a problem.
I think the point of these DRM systems is rather dubious, since the technology has already been shown to have gaping flaws and the algorithms have already been cracked, so it won’t stop piracy one little bit. Record companies and the film industry might have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new business model that allows for unlimited copying. DRM is an exercise in futility – it will all get cracked sooner or later, and it only inconveniences legitimate users and those who have no interest in consuming endless junk music and films on their PC.
Edited 2007-01-09 23:57
“Back in the good old days of Vinyl records, the idea of copying your music from one device to another and sharing those copies around didn’t exist.”
1. You’ve obviously never heard of cassette tapes then. The Record industry was just as hysterical back then, claiming that allowing customers to use casette would destroy the entire music industry. Plus ça change.
“Now there is no technical barrier to copying music or digital video ad infinitum…”
2. And who created the equipment and formats that facilitated such copying? Certainly not the end user. Companies like Sony create the CD medium (which they subsequently chose to make recordable) and then Sony moan when people pay money to them to buy these recordable devices and actually use them to record.
Look how differently Sony behaved before they were content providers. Sony made the “Walkman”, a portable personal listening device specifically made for listening to your *COPIED* LPs while you’re on the move. Does that concept sound familiar? So years later along comes another such device that allows you to play music copied from your CDS. But Sony is now a Record label and not just a hardware manufacturer, so what do they do? Do they embrace the concept in the way they did when they were the company that was providing t? No, they chose to rookit people’s computers instead.
Sony also created the DAT format as a means to allow users the same quality on their recordings that was available on CD. This originally included the ability to make direct 44.1KHz digital transfers from CD. The creation of the DAT format resulted in huge wranglings with the Record industry (who again claimed that the world as we know it would end) and, due to legal pressure, the DAT format sunk without trace (at least as a consumer format). This was despite the devices having been subsequently crippled so that they could not record at 44.1KHz.
“record companies and film companies have only one option to protect their old business model …”
3. This is true, but that’s only because they stubbornly refuse to give up the ONE cash cow (sorry, “business model”) that they’ve had since the 1950s.
Perhaps if they considered adopting a NEW business model (suitable for todays market) then they wouldn’t need to spend all their time bitching about iTunes.
As a content creator, I will be sure to stay away from Vista as a creation platform.
Time for the World to get over itself and smell the roses. There is more to life than crap Hollywood films and Music.
Actually some of the best films from the US are Indi Productions anyway.
As the two new DRM infected formats become more common, DVD prices will come down. If you buy a HDTV with a good quality upscaler you will get most of the quality without all the B___ S___.
Facts and only that:
mp3 and other divx stuffs was popular before to become standards …these standards are now used even by serious companies.
They were used and spread, implemented by so called “thieves, burglars or pirates”.
I don’t care of any jugement when for my own safety or developpement I will use or abuse any of these anti-drm or else.
the marketing of MS is a bit old now, take a point let’s talk about it, it will come to talk about me (who can think that bill do not work with hollywood !?).
If window or linux cannot use or be able to read such or such file I bet within the near future a new standard will rise authorizing people to do so.