J
Jeff
Someone pointed me to this:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
Is it true?
Jeff
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
Is it true?
Jeff
H
HeyBub
Jeff said:
Who knows? If you never pirate stuff, you'll never find out.
G
Gordon
HeyBub said:
You haven't read the article, have you? It shows how GENUINE owned content
may be blocked by Vista's "protection" methodology...
K
Kerry Brown
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.
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.
J
Jon
who said in message said:
Anyone who's managed to plough through the whole of that article deserves a
DRM-free version of Vista for that feat alone imho.
C
caver1
Kerry said:
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.
K
Kerry Brown
caver1 said:
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.
R
Rock
Had you searched this newsgroup before posting you would have seen this is
old news, has been posted here before, and this discussion is best put in a
Vista newsgroup.
B
Billy Smith
This is a grossly wrong and ignorant statment.
HeyBub said:
C
caver1
Kerry said:
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?
V
V Green
caver1 said:
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."
--------------------
K
Kerry Brown
V Green said:
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.
V
V Green
Kerry Brown said:
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:
C
caver1
V said:
And I was sneered at when I stated that MS wants to control its customers.
C
caver1
Kerry said:
Thats true but if MS is planning on supporting DRM then the
actions/debate also has to aimed at MS. So until the implementation of
DRM is stopped the problem isn't moot. The reason it seems as if MS is
being focused on here is because this is a MS ng, not because they
created the problem even though MS does support it at this time.
R
Rock
Chuckles at the thought of how does one sneer at someone through a text only
medium? ...unless you actually write it explicitly like
<while sneering at the OP>...
That would work, eh? Or we need to create a sneering emoticon.
C
caver1
Rock said:Chuckles at the thought of how does one sneer at someone through a text
only medium? ...unless you actually write it explicitly like
<while sneering at the OP>...
That would work, eh? Or we need to create a sneering emoticon.
I guess that would be helpful.
R
Rock
caver1 said:I guess that would be helpful.
I hope you didn't take any offense in what I said, it's just when I read
your words an image popped into my mind of the old time black and white
movies before sound (no I wasn't alive then!) with the dastardly villain in
dark clothes and a moustache sneering contemptuously as he ties the damsel
to the railroad tracks. It gave me a good chuckle.
P
Paul Johnson
Jeff said:
Yes. DRM will cost you money, DRM will infringe on your fair use rights for
media you legally purchased, DRM will make interoperability of that media
impossible. Never purchase DRM protected media.
P
Paul Johnson
caver1 said:
And yet you're one of them, according to your user agent. Planning on
coming to the Light Side of the Force soon?