Re: Vista protection cost?


"Kerry Brown" <kerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*a*m> wrote in message
news:eKnwDreMHHA.1912@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"V Green" <vanceg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ugflreeMHHA.3588@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"caver1" <phillip@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:45a02924$0$27039$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Kerry Brown wrote:
"caver1" <phillip@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:459fe061$0$5761$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Kerry Brown wrote:
Your favorite search engine can help you find the many Vista forums
and newsgroups where the topic has been discussed ad nauseam.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=vista+drm&meta=

http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=vista+drm&mkt=en-ca&FORM=LVSP

If you read the articles with an open mind and check out both sides
of the story you'll see that the article you reference is mostly
correct technically but the conclusions are skewed. The author has
an
obvious anti Microsoft bias. DRM is not specific to Vista. If the
content providers have their way every player, software or
hardware,
will have these limitations or be excluded from playing high
definition content in high quality mode. In other words any player
that does not have these hooks will play in a degraded mode if/when
the content providers start using the proposed encryption. If the
content providers implement this, as things stand now Vista would
be
able to play the high definition content if secure hardware is
installed. XP, Linux, and other OS' would not no matter what
hardware
was installed. They would play the content in degraded mode. In
order
to play the content in high quality mode they would have to have
the
same hooks installed or somehow crack the encryption. This is a big
problem but it's not a Vista problem. It's a problem with the
content
providers trying to use technology to solve a problem that is
better
solved by other means. Let's place the blame in the proper place
and
fight DRM restrictions with facts rather than use it as an excuse
for
Microsoft bashing.



I agree with you mostly but at the same time with the power MS has
MS
doesn't have to accept DRM as it is. MS could demand changes in DRM
implementation. The recording industry can't afford to lose MS
backing. But from the looks of it MS is siding with the rest of the
industry with a DRM that goes to far.


And how would they explain this decision to their shareholders and
more
importantly their customers when they can't use the media they just
bought? I agree that DRM goes to far but business wise I can't see
any
legitimate business not at least having the hooks there to use it if
it
comes to pass. There is no way a legitimate business could bypass it
if
it's implemented.



And if the majority of users use Windows, say thru media center or
whatever, to listen/watch this media and MS doesn't go along, who are
the other business going to sell their media to? Its a two way street.
The media producers cannot afford to alienate MS. Why do you think they
want MS onboard?

A little over half-way through this article is the REAL answer
to the question: "Why is MS doing this?"

-------------------------------
"The only reason I can imagine why Microsoft
would put its programmers, device vendors, third-party developers, and
ultimately its customers, through this much pain is because once this
copy
protection is entrenched, Microsoft will completely own the distribution
channel. In the same way that Apple has managed to acquire a
monopolistic
lock-in on their music distribution channel (an example being the
Motorola
ROKR fiasco, which was so crippled by Apple-imposed restrictions that it
was
dead the moment it appeared), so Microsoft will totally control the
premium-
content distribution channel. Not only will they be able to lock out
any
competitors, but because they will then represent the only available
distribution channel they'll be able to dictate terms back to the
content
providers whose needs they are nominally serving in the same way that
Apple
has already dictated terms back to the music industry: Play by Apple's
rules,
or we won't carry your content. The result will be a technologically
enforced
monopoly that makes their current de-facto Windows monopoly seem like a
velvet
glove in comparison."
--------------------




The author of the article has an obvious dislike for Microsoft. If the
content is ever encrypted then in the US it is against the law to try and
bypass it. This is the reason the hooks for DRM are in Vista. There are
two
sides to every story. Usually the truth is somewhere in the middle. Here
is
another link that refutes a lot of the article in question.

http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/2006/12/31/windows_vista_drm_nonsense

Read the article and the comments. This is is highly charged issue that
won't be solved by technology. I am sure there are inaccuracies in both
articles. If the proposed DRM encryption isn't implemented then the
problem
is moot. This is where people should be focusing. Microsoft and all the
other manufacturers of playback software and hardware aren't going to let
themselves be locked out of high quality content so they will be
developing
methods of playing it back. If we can stop the or alter the plans of the
media content providers then all the rest doesn't matter.


--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca



Right on. I was just pointing out a relevant paragraph
that seemed to have been overlooked.

Personally, I coudn't care less about DRM on so-called
"premium content" which is "premium" in its technical
implementation only - most "content" being foisted off
on us these days is nothing but the purest crap, never
mind that I can view said crap in HD - that just makes
it even more obvious that it is crap. I don't set aside time
to watch or listen to crap so it will never KNOWINGLY
be played back on any box I have.

Problems arise, however, when using Vista to edit content
which is purely your own (I perform pipeline video inspections
and record/capture/edit thousands of hours of video each year) and
it has determined (perhaps incorrectly) that, unbeknownst to you,
there's a snippet of "premium" content residing on your editing machine (who
knows what the definition of "premium content" will be -
it could be a frickin' ad cached in Temporary Internet Files
for all I know) and my entire multimedia subsystem gets
"downgraded" to protect this content.

Won't happen here, as I have "frozen" my capture/edit software
chain years ago, am still using Office 97 SBE (no improvements
that matter to me since then), and don't see any significant changes
on the horizon for anything I use my PC's for, so Vista will never
see the light of day here. The only reason I run XP at all is for
the HT support (video transcoding benefits) otherwise I'd still be
running W2K, a far more stable platform than XP has been for
me, running the same software.

I think the author of the article has it exactly right:

-----------------
"Executive Executive Summary
---------------------------

The Vista Content Protection specification could very well constitute the
longest suicide note in history [Note A]."
--------------------

Microsoft is flailing, nothing new is coming outta there.




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Microsoft tries to polish a turd
    ... They did, however, have *plenty* of time to implement DRM. ... DRM is a kernel service in Vista that prevents users from accessing ... "many of Vista's DRM technologies exist not because Microsoft ... get the new operating system with new computers. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Trial Expiration
    ... I am a Microsoft System Builder and Intel Channel Partner, ... selling and servicing Vista in the Small Office and Home ... I've strived to build with Microsoft, ... MS-MVP Windows Media Center\Windows Powered Smart ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.mediacenter)
  • Re: Vista protection cost?
    ... >>> obvious anti Microsoft bias. ... DRM is not specific to Vista. ... > importantly their customers when they can't use the media they just ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Vista protection cost?
    ... >>> obvious anti Microsoft bias. ... DRM is not specific to Vista. ... > importantly their customers when they can't use the media they just ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: DRM
    ... I looked at your post below as I am having the same problems on my Windows ... I also posted the following to the Windows Vista Managed News Group: ... The DRM folder was empty to start. ... Also looking at the support information for Windows Media Player yields blank ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsmedia.player)
Loading