Vista and content protection (DRM) (1 Viewer)

[Roberdin]

Well, people have been testing Vista for some time and I've never heard about anything that restrictive. It's not really a feature they can turn on in the final build and hope to work without proper testing.

 

[Paul S]

You mean that you believe that Windows would never release something without fully testing it to make sure that everything works properly?

HA!

The amount of updates for earlier windows products says otherwise.

 

[Roberdin]

That is not what I mean; I'm saying that such an extensive and core system change cannot be patched in at the last build. We'd have seen signs of it in previous betas and pre-releases: of course no flagged content has really been released yet either.

 

[James]

This has already been seen.

From doom9 (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=921783#post921783):

I just bought a HD-DVD drive to plug on my PC, and a HD movie, cool! But when I realized the 2 software players on windows don't allowed me to play the movie at all, because my video card is not HDCP compliant and because I have a HD monitor plugged with DVI interface, I started to get mad... This is not what we can call "fair use"!
....
BTW, when I disable my HD monitor, I can watch the movie,on my old VGA screen, but, what is the point of having a HD monitor and not being able to watch a HD movie on it!

 

[funkstar]

Vista knows about HDCP and has the ability to block output using non- HDCP compliant hardware. But this is a big difference from being able to detect non digitally signed media and reduce the quality based on that.

In fact what you will find is that the media that you pay for and have a legitimate right to use, will be the most difficult to play. If you have the same content but without the DRM included it will play anywhere you like on any hardware, regardless of its HDCP compliance or otherwise.

 

[cowpie]

Well it's affecting hardware as you can read in the cost analysis of vista drm, see the problems with graphics cards. That means less or no interoperability with Linux, yet again lock-in, and much less control for the user to do what they want with hardware they paid money for.

If it's not digitally signed it will be play. But it won't be up to the control of the user who BUYS their music, it's all in the hands of industry who dictate whether you can open up your .drm-protected file in Audacity or not, or record it from the audio so that you can. Maybe in the future only un-licensed computers will be able to play these unprotected files and licensed computers won't, after all Microsoft themselves have stated that they don't include divx in their MEdia Center extender softwares to prevent piracy.

here's another link about trusted computing (aka next wave of DRM) http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq-1.0.html

You can also go with the FSF view that DRM (regardless of protecting copyright, think documents) is inherently evil, just think what people would think of Nixon and Vietman, and what would have happened back then, if those documents had been drm'd.

 

[SOUNDYTIM]

The way i see, Because vista will come with every new computer.You will have to de-upgrade."Sticking WITH xp wont be easy"

 

[CoolHammer]

Looks like trend that every new computer part was cheaper and better performance than its previous model is gone. This is going to hurt small companies with fresh ideas a lot. You get more complicated system, and for what? Just to poor more money for those companies that did't actually deserve it.

 

[ziphnor]

I paid money for a book. I own that copy of the book. So what? I don't have the right to photocopy that book a million times. Why is it any different to software (the book) and a photocopier (the computer)?

But the photo-copier doesnt try to read a license from the paper and complain that you are not allowed to make a copy!

I agree that just because there isn't a better way doesn't mean MS should force it on to us. But think of it from another perspective - if MS doesn't impose it, the record companies, movie companies etc. will just use a 3rd party one, and probably multiple ones. This just results in massive confusion for the general public.

Such confusion would be great, consumers would start wondering why everything is so damn complicated, and they might even realize that DRM is to blame, especially if Microsoft point the finger at big media companies and indicate that they are the cause of the mess.

Is it better to sacrifice those who don't want DRM and will never use DRM (people like you), or to create massive confusion in the industry with many non-standard DRM solutions (joe public)? That's the dillemma Microsoft faces.

As indicated above, i would prefer massive confusion so people would realize just how annoying DRM is.

Ultimately, the goal is to reduce piracy, and DRM is an attempt at that because it allows content providers to provide their content and enforce the terms. Whether or not DRM providers go overboard in their terms is not relevant - we're talking about the technology here that enables that.

In regards to the technology i wonder why watermarking is not more widespread, it discourages piracy without limiting the customers use of the product. I have bought some watermarked MP3 files, and its the only form of DRM i find acceptable.

Until we morph as a society into something else that's not capitalist-centered, DRM is here to stay, whatever form it may be in.

Have you followed the DRM debate recently? DRM on music is being challenged on several fronts and there have been alot of rumors about big music companies planning to give up on DRM exactly because its causing so many problems.

 

[rtv]

I agree that just because there isn't a better way doesn't mean MS should force it on to us. But think of it from another perspective - if MS doesn't impose it, the record companies, movie companies etc. will just use a 3rd party one, and probably multiple ones. This just results in massive confusion for the general public.

Such confusion would be great, consumers would start wondering why everything is so damn complicated, and they might even realize that DRM is to blame, especially if Microsoft point the finger at big media companies and indicate that they are the cause of the mess.

Well said!

Unfortunately I'm reading/watching false press info almost every day - like gamers will upgrade as soon as possible because only Vista supports DX10 and .NET3.
Bullshit like this was in our daily news

Finally I think many people are just to lazy to realize how they are treated with DRM and act on it (and e.g. "upgrade" to Linux or at least Win XP).

Until we morph as a society into something else that's not capitalist-centered, DRM is here to stay, whatever form it may be in.

THIS capitalism would allow for the most effective weapon against pro-DRM companies: boycott