Are We All Screwed?

[Kevin Spencer]

Communists and Socialists will use this sort of information to argue for
their political philosophy. However, the arguments are flawed logically.
Human beings are (logically) motivated to work by benefit to self. I would
not work at my job if I was not rewarded to do so. I would instead do
something more enjoyable. And if I made the same amount of money regardless
of how hard I worked, I would work as little as possible. I would have no
logical incentive to do otherwise.

Therefore, the issue of Digital Rights Management is moot. Those who work to
produce products for their welfare will guard their welfare by working to
ensure that they are paid for their effort. I do. Everybody does. Regardless
of the political structure of a body, regardless of its' well-meaning
attempts to ensure that those who produce less are rewarded the same for
their efforts, all of those who participate in such a political structure
will still follow the same law of self-preservation. This is why there is
such a disparity of wealth between the ruling class in Communist and
Socialist countries and the working class. Those in the ruling class, like
those in the working class, are still, as individuals, struggling for their
own survival and welfare. The difference is that, because they are in the
ruling class, they have better resources to do so.

In other words, no matter how one tries to "level the playing field," or
change the rules of the game of life, the basic objectives and rules remain
the same. Haggling over such issues as Digital Rights Management is
therefore a waste of resources. Anyone who thinks otherwise certainly *is*
screwed, simply because their resources are not directed towards anything
that is profitable.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Bit Player
http://unclechutney.blogspot.com

Where there's a Will, there's a William.

 

[Tom Lake]

Communists and Socialists will use this sort of information to argue for their
political philosophy. However, the arguments are flawed logically. Human beings are
(logically) motivated to work by benefit to self. I would not work at my job if I
was not rewarded to do so. I would instead do something more enjoyable. And if I
made the same amount of money regardless of how hard I worked, I would work as
little as possible. I would have no logical incentive to do otherwise.

I work my hardest and do my best work no matter what I get paid. For me,
the reward is in my knowing I did the best I could, not totally in monetary
compensation. Benefit to self is not especially logical. Neither is benefit
to society. Is it logical to have all one over the other? No, they're
interrelated. If everyone only looked out for themselves, society would
collapse and individuals would suffer. If everyone only did things for the
good of society and ignored their own needs, they would likewise suffer.
The only logical course of action is to balance the needs of society with
those of the individual.

Tom Lake

 

[Kevin Young]

Piracy will continue no matter what Microsoft does.
There will always be a portion of the population that
will want something for nothing, and many of those will get away with it.
It is just too hard to protect software
in the hands of a determined hacker who then loves to share
what he has done. Microsoft will not win that battle. It isn't
the same as protecting a bank... even those still get robbed.
All Microsoft is doing is wasting resources and bogging down
their OS with crap that *will* be cracked. It always been and
always will be. All it ends up doing is making a buggier product
and many times pissing off paying customers.

Microsoft should do some basic stuff to protect its software,
that's fine. But things are starting to get a bit out of hand and
overly complicated. Instead of Microsoft wasting so much time
and resources on future failures they repeat over and over with
their attempt at stopping piracy- perhaps, they should start focusing
more on those that are willing to pay for it and make us happy.

I couldn't agree more. My very recent experience in to the realm of DRM and
ebooks has made me decide that in the future I will refuse to buy any
further ebooks that employ DRM technology. I had Adobe format content and
recently upgraded to Adobe 8 only to find that I could no longer access any
of my ebooks. I contacted the ebook seller only to be advised that I would
need to reinstall Adobe 7.0.8 which I did, however, when I tried to activate
that version I was told I had activated to many times and it wouldn't
activate. I contacted Adobe by email only to be sent an email back telling
me to call them. This is after paying $10+ a pop for each ebook that at
present I am unable to access.

Once again DRM drives a paying customer away. I thought ebooks were suppose
to provide some convenience over paper based versions but DRM has simply
made them a pain in the neck. I refuse to go through endless emails and
phone calls just to use a product I have legitimately purchased. This whole
experience with DRM has made me question if I even want Vista. I know none
of the problems I experienced were in any way related to MS but if they are
supporting DRM do I need the headaches that using their products are likely
to bring? Activation with Windows XP was a pain but I put up with it, I
think each of us has a threshold that we will tolerate before looking for
alternatives elsewhere such as to Mac or Linux. What is so frustrating is
that I like MS products and will happily pay for them and in fact have done
so for over 10 years but am getting close to my personal threshold where I
will be saying enough is enough and I'm not going to take it any longer.

 

[MICHAEL]

I couldn't agree more. My very recent experience in to the realm of DRM and ebooks has made
me decide that in the future I will refuse to buy any further ebooks that employ DRM
technology. I had Adobe format content and recently upgraded to Adobe 8 only to find that I
could no longer access any of my ebooks. I contacted the ebook seller only to be advised
that I would need to reinstall Adobe 7.0.8 which I did, however, when I tried to activate
that version I was told I had activated to many times and it wouldn't activate. I contacted
Adobe by email only to be sent an email back telling me to call them. This is after paying
$10+ a pop for each ebook that at present I am unable to access.

Once again DRM drives a paying customer away. I thought ebooks were suppose to provide some
convenience over paper based versions but DRM has simply made them a pain in the neck. I
refuse to go through endless emails and phone calls just to use a product I have legitimately
purchased. This whole experience with DRM has made me question if I even want Vista. I know
none of the problems I experienced were in any way related to MS but if they are supporting
DRM do I need the headaches that using their products are likely to bring? Activation with
Windows XP was a pain but I put up with it, I think each of us has a threshold that we will
tolerate before looking for alternatives elsewhere such as to Mac or Linux. What is so
frustrating is that I like MS products and will happily pay for them and in fact have done so
for over 10 years but am getting close to my personal threshold where I will be saying enough
is enough and I'm not going to take it any longer.

Awhile back I posted several lengthy rants about my problems with
MSN Music and DRM issues. It was one of the most aggravating
experiences I have ever encountered. I found my own way of fixing
the problem, and I will never do DRM again.


-Michael

 

[Brian P. Hammer]

You are talking only about extrinsically motivated people. Some are
intrinsically motivated, that being, doing the best they can with the reward
of knowing they are doing their best. I am one of those people.... But,
money does help.

Brian

 

[Daze N. Knights]

Awhile back I posted several lengthy rants about my problems with
MSN Music and DRM issues. It was one of the most aggravating
experiences I have ever encountered. I found my own way of fixing
the problem,

?

and I will never do DRM again.

 

[MICHAEL]

FairUse4WM

http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/fairuse4wm-strips-windows-media-drm/



and I will never do DRM again.

 

[Nina DiBoy]

Well, someone had to bring it up… So it's here:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt

To Summarize, the document describes the lengths Microsoft® has taken to
protect "precious" content. Some of you may know it as DRM—Digital
"Restrictions" Management (to be absolutely correct). DRM exists to protect
the interests of groups like RIAA and MPAA—not the consumers. Some might say
that premium content is so expensive to compensate for piracy, but DRM just
adds more costs: There is the overhead of DRM, the costs of forcing people to
upgrade their computers/hardware to access premium content, the costs of
designing new hardware and device drivers, etc. They do no good for the
consumer. Computers… are supposed to work for us, and not against us. Anyway,
the document gives a better argument than this summary here. Read it!

Are we all screwed? YES! If you continue to choose to use Vista, that is.

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Good poets borrow; great poets steal."
- T. S. Eliot

 

[Daze N. Knights]

FairUse4WM

http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/fairuse4wm-strips-windows-media-drm/

Got it. Thanx!

 

[Guest]

Windows Media's DRM is called PlaysForSure… which is the complete opposite of
what it is. RestrictsForSure seems like a more suitable name. If Microsoft
can show me that their DRMed music can play on anything, I'll take back my
comment.

 

[William]

.... yes.

 

[Robert Moir]

Windows Media's DRM is called PlaysForSure. which is the complete
opposite of what it is. RestrictsForSure seems like a more suitable
name. If Microsoft can show me that their DRMed music can play on
anything, I'll take back my comment.

It's probably worth reminding everyone at this point that DRM is not a
Microsoft problem. Apple's iTunes store also uses DRM and there are other
proprietary solutions out there too. Fact is, it's an industry problem (DRM
even represents a problem of a slightly different kind for Linux) because,
IIRC, the entertainment industry refuses to work with the computer industry
without something like DRM being in place.

 

[Guest]

I read Peter Gutmann's article, which I must say I found rather distressing.
It's not the added cost, which will probably be quite minimal and will
certainly go down with time, that concerns me, but anything that affects
system performance is certainly an issue of considerable concern. But then I
had to ask myself, would Microsoft intentionally spend millions to develop an
OS system that performs poorly? How could that help Microsoft?
I then reviewed the power point presentation prepared by ATI that Peter
refers to in his article.
http://download.microsoft.com/downl...4e74-92a3-088782200fe7/TWEN05002_WinHEC05.ppt
Not much of a presentation but Peter Gutmann seems to think it's of vital
importance as he quotes from it on several occasions.
Unfortunately there is nothing anti-microsoft or anti-vista about the
presentation despite the way Peter quotes from it so freely. In fact if
anything the presentation is pointing out the importance of incorporating
this DRM protection in developing PC technology.
With all respect to Peter Gutmann, who has a PhD in computer science and is
a respected journalist, in this case I feel he's actually misrepresenting ATI
in the way he quotes from their presentation. Allow me to quote the "session
goals" found on page three of the presentation:
"Explain why content protection is so important to the PC platform"
After reading that, what in the world would lead one to think that ATI is
opposed to incorporating DRM into their technology? Yet Peter quotes them as
though they were in full agreement with his arguments. That's misleading, and
the fact one has a PhD does not put them above being questioned.
Besides he makes sweeping statements and conclusions that in my point of
view betray his real intentions. It may be within his rights to conclude:
"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..."
but I beg to differ. I might ask why he so quickly concludes it's all a big
evil conspiracy. Could it not be possible there might be some other motive
for including this kind of technology in Windows Vista?
Peter concludes his arguments by pointing out that a PC is not a
"Premium-content media player." That may well be but does that mean it's
condemned to never be? Again notice what ATi says in the very power point
presentation Peter likes to quote:
"The Windows multimedia PC offers a flexible and convenient platform for
managing and viewing PREMIUM CONTENT in the home."

What we have here is a lack of vision.
The real question is, “DO YOU WANT TO PLAY PREMIUM-CONTENT ON YOUR PC?
Because if you do, as ATI point s out in their presentation, you need to win
the confidence of premium content producers and that is exactly what
Microsoft has tried to do.
"The studios, however, do not want to release their content on the PC
platform unless they are assured that it will not be illegally copied"
So perhaps the issue here isn't "world dominion" by Microsoft, but rather a
simple issue that Microsoft is working with others (you see they are not
"almighty") to ensure that in the future PC users will be able to view
premium content on their computers, and my guess is other OS systems will
have to move in the same direction unless they want their user to be reduced
to turning their PC's into an expensive typewriter.
I have no doubt that DRM has problems, and I have no doubt that people will
find ways around it but if Premium-content producers are content enough to
continue to allow their content to be made available to the average PC user,
then thank you Microsoft for trying to find a happy medium for us all.
I'm living in a city where I couldn't by an original game, program or OS for
all the money in the world. I can by Adobe Illustrator or a movie before it's
even come out in DVD, for just over a dollar, but who knows what other junk
ones getting with it, besides the fact half the time things don't work right
and half way through a game your whole computer comes to a grinding stop. In
order to get anything original I have to order it over the internet, let’s
hope that the hassles of trying to get around digital rights will become more
of a bother then it's worth, and people around the world start buying
legitimate products. Maybe then software companies and artists will start
lowering the cost of their products due to growing market.

 

[Robert Moir]

black clouds wrote:
[lots of stuff snipped]

What we have here is a lack of vision.
The real question is, "DO YOU WANT TO PLAY PREMIUM-CONTENT ON YOUR
PC?

To be honest, not really, it's a conveniance rather than a requirement. As
it stands, my computer is a far worse DVD player than a dedicated DVD
player. So is everyone else's computer for that matter.

Because if you do, as ATI point s out in their presentation, you need
to win the confidence of premium content producers and that is
exactly what Microsoft has tried to do.
"The studios, however, do not want to release their content on the PC
platform unless they are assured that it will not be illegally copied"

Yes, so the 'evil conspiracy' is on the part of the "Premium Content
Providers". Simple fact is that DRM conspires to erode 'fair use'.

In order to get anything
original I have to order it over the internet, let's hope that the
hassles of trying to get around digital rights will become more of a
bother then it's worth, and people around the world start buying
legitimate products.

And get rewarded by the likes of "Premium Content Provider" Sony installing
a rootkit on your computer? Not bloody likely, thanks just the same.

Maybe then software companies and artists will
start lowering the cost of their products due to growing market.

You mean like the way CD prices dropped to encourage people to buy players
and then grew again with the market increases, until the music industry was
called out on its behaviour?

 

[Lucvdv]

That makes piracy ok?

Does the fact that piracy exists make it OK to punish paying customers
for it, not only by making them pay more, but also by making it harder
to use the content they paid for, while the pirates will always find
new ways to keep doing what they've always been doing?

 

[Guest]

Just a couple of questions and comments. First could you elaborate a little
on what you mean by "Fair use"?

Second, my computer actually does play DVD's better then my DVD player,
perhaps it's because I use a multimedia projector or perhaps it's because my
DVD player is just a mid range player, nothing special. In any case it makes
little difference, millions of people will want to play Premium content and
an OS that can't do that certainly isn't taking their needs into account. My
bet is if you don't want to play premium content you won't be affected by DRM
issues. Can you prove me wrong?

Despite these claims that DRM functions reduce performance I can honestly
say that performance on my PC since installing Vista, without any changes to
hardware, is far better then it ever was with XP. My guess is any DRM process
run only when needed and if that's not the case then where's this performance
degradation that's being spoken off. I'd actually like to know what processes
handle this digital rights management so I can check and see how much they
actually affect my system.

The other issue is, if at anytime over the next few years you did find you
wanted to run premium content on your computer I'll bet you'd be pretty upset
to find out your OS couldn't handle it, so we come back to the point
Microsoft is looking ahead at a lot of developing technologies and trying to
provide an OS that will be capable of meeting users needs over the next few
years. I don't like DRM, I don't like locks either but I can't blame a lock
manufacturer for that, I'm just glad they're there when I need them. Sorry I
have to run.

black clouds wrote:
[lots of stuff snipped]

What we have here is a lack of vision.
The real question is, "DO YOU WANT TO PLAY PREMIUM-CONTENT ON YOUR
PC?

To be honest, not really, it's a conveniance rather than a requirement. As
it stands, my computer is a far worse DVD player than a dedicated DVD
player. So is everyone else's computer for that matter.

Because if you do, as ATI point s out in their presentation, you need
to win the confidence of premium content producers and that is
exactly what Microsoft has tried to do.
"The studios, however, do not want to release their content on the PC
platform unless they are assured that it will not be illegally copied"

Yes, so the 'evil conspiracy' is on the part of the "Premium Content
Providers". Simple fact is that DRM conspires to erode 'fair use'.

In order to get anything
original I have to order it over the internet, let's hope that the
hassles of trying to get around digital rights will become more of a
bother then it's worth, and people around the world start buying
legitimate products.

And get rewarded by the likes of "Premium Content Provider" Sony installing
a rootkit on your computer? Not bloody likely, thanks just the same.

Maybe then software companies and artists will
start lowering the cost of their products due to growing market.

You mean like the way CD prices dropped to encourage people to buy players
and then grew again with the market increases, until the music industry was
called out on its behaviour?

 

[Will]

I hear a lot of valid arguments on this subject

However for quite a few years now Windows Media Player has had the ability
to convert CD tracks into Mp3 tracks
Now that Microsoft are trying to get content providers on side by
implementing DRM, will media player still have this function and continue to
have this function in the future ?

I myself still mainly buy my music the old fashioned way (cd's from the
store) and I use windows media player to convert tracks from those cd's to
mp3's for personal use on my mp3 player and pc
To me this is fair use seeing I don't convert the tracks for distribution
I'm merely enjoying the use of something I paid for.
I assume there are also people out there that would use this feature in
media player to convert and illegally mass distribute mp3's
However I hope I can continue converting tracks I paid for and microsoft
keeps the cd ripping function with mp3 output in media player

Just a couple of questions and comments. First could you elaborate a
little
on what you mean by "Fair use"?

Second, my computer actually does play DVD's better then my DVD player,
perhaps it's because I use a multimedia projector or perhaps it's because
my
DVD player is just a mid range player, nothing special. In any case it
makes
little difference, millions of people will want to play Premium content
and
an OS that can't do that certainly isn't taking their needs into account.
My
bet is if you don't want to play premium content you won't be affected by
DRM
issues. Can you prove me wrong?

Despite these claims that DRM functions reduce performance I can honestly
say that performance on my PC since installing Vista, without any changes
to
hardware, is far better then it ever was with XP. My guess is any DRM
process
run only when needed and if that's not the case then where's this
performance
degradation that's being spoken off. I'd actually like to know what
processes
handle this digital rights management so I can check and see how much they
actually affect my system.

The other issue is, if at anytime over the next few years you did find you
wanted to run premium content on your computer I'll bet you'd be pretty
upset
to find out your OS couldn't handle it, so we come back to the point
Microsoft is looking ahead at a lot of developing technologies and trying
to
provide an OS that will be capable of meeting users needs over the next
few
years. I don't like DRM, I don't like locks either but I can't blame a
lock
manufacturer for that, I'm just glad they're there when I need them. Sorry
I
have to run.

black clouds wrote:
[lots of stuff snipped]

What we have here is a lack of vision.
The real question is, "DO YOU WANT TO PLAY PREMIUM-CONTENT ON YOUR
PC?

To be honest, not really, it's a conveniance rather than a requirement.
As
it stands, my computer is a far worse DVD player than a dedicated DVD
player. So is everyone else's computer for that matter.

Because if you do, as ATI point s out in their presentation, you need
to win the confidence of premium content producers and that is
exactly what Microsoft has tried to do.
"The studios, however, do not want to release their content on the PC
platform unless they are assured that it will not be illegally copied"

Yes, so the 'evil conspiracy' is on the part of the "Premium Content
Providers". Simple fact is that DRM conspires to erode 'fair use'.

In order to get anything
original I have to order it over the internet, let's hope that the
hassles of trying to get around digital rights will become more of a
bother then it's worth, and people around the world start buying
legitimate products.

And get rewarded by the likes of "Premium Content Provider" Sony
installing
a rootkit on your computer? Not bloody likely, thanks just the same.

Maybe then software companies and artists will
start lowering the cost of their products due to growing market.

You mean like the way CD prices dropped to encourage people to buy
players
and then grew again with the market increases, until the music industry
was
called out on its behaviour?

 

[Paul Smith]

Well, someone had to bring it up… So it's here:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt

I've written more about some of the claims mentioned here:

http://blogs.dasmirnov.net/paul/2006/12/31/windows_vista_drm_nonsense

Short answer is don't believe everything.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.windowsresource.net/
Get ready for Windows Vista: http://www.windowsvista.com/getready/

*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*

 

[Paul Smith]

Communists and Socialists will use this sort of information to argue for
their political philosophy. However, the arguments are flawed logically.
Human beings are (logically) motivated to work by benefit to self.

I'm a socialist, and I think you've got it backwards.

Under capitalism you don't get paid the full value of your labour - if you
did the capitalist wouldn't be making any money (profit) out of you.

By removing the capitalist from the equation and making the means of
production publically owned, you give to the workers the full fruits of
their labour. The worker no longer has to support a tiny handful of
capitalists living off his or her work.

In a socialist society, there would be no need for DRM.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.windowsresource.net/
Get ready for Windows Vista: http://www.windowsvista.com/getready/

*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*

 

[Robert Moir]

Just a couple of questions and comments. First could you elaborate a
little on what you mean by "Fair use"?

The ability to make backups of content I buy - impeded by DRM
The ability to listen to music I purchase in any way I choose - impeded by
some types of DRM

Second, my computer actually does play DVD's better then my DVD
player, perhaps it's because I use a multimedia projector or perhaps
it's because my DVD player is just a mid range player, nothing
special.

I was referring to general 'living room experience'.

A computer is vastly more complex to operate than a simple DVD player -
which isn't a barrier to me using it, to you using, to the majority of the
people here using it, I know that, but it _is_ a barrier to use for a lot of
people.

A computer is usually louder, more 'intrusive', more fault-prone, and I
think probably consumes far more energy than a simple DVD player.

In any case it makes little difference, millions of people
will want to play Premium content and an OS that can't do that
certainly isn't taking their needs into account.

Can't argue with that one. The question is whether or not the users realise
the very high price they have to pay for this ability.

My bet is if you
don't want to play premium content you won't be affected by DRM
issues. Can you prove me wrong?

No problem. The Sony DRM-protecting rootkit affected, heck INfected anyone
who played a single one of the problem CDs, regardless of whether or not
they wanted to "play premium content".

Some kinds of DRM mean that if I want to play music from both my laptop and
my desktop, I would need to buy the track twice, or pay extra and perform a
lot of extra work to burn the tracks to CD as music, which I can then have
to re-sample on the other machine.

There's your "proof".

Despite these claims that DRM functions reduce performance I can
honestly say that performance on my PC since installing Vista,
without any changes to hardware, is far better then it ever was with
XP. My guess is any DRM process run only when needed and if that's
not the case then where's this performance degradation that's being
spoken off. I'd actually like to know what processes handle this
digital rights management so I can check and see how much they
actually affect my system.

The other issue is, if at anytime over the next few years you did
find you wanted to run premium content on your computer I'll bet
you'd be pretty upset to find out your OS couldn't handle it, so we
come back to the point Microsoft is looking ahead at a lot of
developing technologies and trying to provide an OS that will be
capable of meeting users needs over the next few years. I don't like
DRM, I don't like locks either but I can't blame a lock manufacturer
for that, I'm just glad they're there when I need them. Sorry I have
to run.

I respect your point of view, you raise some good points, but you're
ignoring the main thrust of the whole discussion here - not whether or not
people want to do this, not whether or not it is really nice that Windows
Vista can do the job, but whether the high price being extracted by the
content owners and being paid "on our behalf" by Microsoft is worth it.