From the FAQ section of the linked document - the author's reply to
the sugestion it's FUD:
This is all a pile of FUD.
The process that leads to comments like this tends to be (1) Quickly
skim through this document, (2) Decide that it sounds a bit
implausible (possibly even before performing step 1), (3) Post a rant
saying it's FUD. To pick one particular example, a Digg reader's
reaction to the section of text that states there isn't sufficient CPU
power available for both decompression and encryption was:
I'm sorry, where does this come from? You do realize that this is
completely uncited, and very likely wrong? Entire paragraphs that
follow are based on this magical detail pulled out of thin air. [...]
I'm no fan of this asinine DRM bullshit, but the scenarios and
postulates put forth in this article are complete rubbish.
Referring to the very first source listed in the Sources section
shows that this is picked not from thin air but from Microsoft's own
documentation:
The problem with regular AES is that it takes about 20 CPU clocks to
encrypt each byte. This is OK for compressed or semi-compressed video,
but for the multiple HD uncompressed case, it is too much even for a
2006 processor [referring to the fastest CPU available at the time the
document was written].
and then again:
In the case of premium content, whether video can play back smoothly
when using regular AES with uncompressed video will be a function of
the resolution of the uncompressed video and the power of the
processor. It is unlikely to work well in 2006 for uncompressed HD
premium content
If you don't believe what you've read here, go back to Microsoft's
own documentation and read that (in fact read the Microsoft documents
no matter what you believe, because they're quite scary). If you still
think it's FUD then you can at least post informed comments about it.
