Vista and the Slippery Slope of DRM

[standing ovation]

Apparently, Digital Rights Management is the foundation of Windows Vista. In order to police copyrighted material it must first have absolute control. Without it, Microsoft's latest OS will cripple the offending hardware/software -- or disable it altogether. According to Peter Gutmann, Vista's authoritarian nature could prove problematic for both producers and consumers alike.

Dr. Gutmann's "A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection" is very illuminating.

Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to provide content protection for so-called “premium contentâ€￾, typically HD data from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources. Providing this protection incurs considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical support overhead, and hardware and software cost. These issues affect not only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the protection measures extend to cover all hardware and software that will ever come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista (for example hardware in a Macintosh computer or on a Linux server). This document analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry. – Peter Gutmann, Honorary Researcher, Department of Computer Science, University of Auckland (New Zealand)

 

[Albuquerque]

God damnit, not this shit again.

Been there. Done that. Go play in the other thread. The REALITY is that ANY OS THAT EVER EVER EVER wants to play DRM content will have to be subject to the same limitations and issues.

This isn't Microsoft's doing, this is the big-wig media giants that enacted this crap. You know what this means? No Bluray and HD-DVD player for Apple, or any flavor of *Nix until they meet the same basic criteria (or it's eventually cracked and then released)

If you don't like it, then don't buy DRM'd media. But for God(s)'s sake, please don't pin this stupid shit on Microsoft.

 

[AlexV]

But, MS is evil, no?As in really really evil...and Bill rapes the Easter Bunny and stuff, I know it...dudes all over the net know it. What`s quite ironical is that most of the fired-up anti-DRM, anti-Vista, anti-WGA, anti-MS anti-everything type their posts on a computer using pirated software...it`s their way of being Che Guevaras(this is not targeted at the OP, btw), stealing shit and complaining it`s harder to steal the shit. It`s quite fun really

 

[Albuquerque]

But, MS is evil, no?As in really really evil...and Bill rapes the Easter Bunny and stuff, I know it...dudes all over the net know it. What`s quite ironical is that most of the fired-up anti-DRM, anti-Vista, anti-WGA, anti-MS anti-everything type their posts on a computer using pirated software...it`s their way of being Che Guevaras(this is not targeted at the OP, btw), stealing shit and complaining it`s harder to steal the shit. It`s quite fun really

LOL!

Sorry for being harsh above, my bad Honestly though, every time I hear someone cry about DRM or Vista or both at the same time, it's usually the same person who has eleventy billion copied and pirated copies of whatever they're crying about.

Glad it seems I'm not the only one who sees this...

 

[pascal]

Sorry for being harsh above, my bad Honestly though, every time I hear someone cry about DRM or Vista or both at the same time, it's usually the same person who has eleventy billion copied and pirated copies of whatever they're crying about.

I dont have pirated copies of what I am crying about. And this is the second time you are harsh with other people.

Better not be naive. DRM is something that not only Vista embrace but promisse and encourage. This could well be the plataform for more sofisticated kinds of consumer nightmares and exploitation.

 

[AlexV]

Now, now...why is DRM terrible?It`s just a means of protecting someone`s work...the next thing I`ll read on the internet is a petition for ppl to leave their houses` doors unlocked, their money hanging out of their pockets conveniently, their credit cards, with the pin numbers attached, on the counter and so on and so forth. It is not logical.

These darned movies cost money to make, they`re an investment, and unless you`re a moronic investor, you want to cash-in on your investment 1000%. Your investment is not that likeable to bring a helluva lot of profit, if any joe with an el-cheapo dvd-reader and a fairly ancient system can rip your content with ease, as is the case with current DVDs.What is the solution?Make it hellish enough to rip, and you`ve got a new income stream from the ppl not ready to go through the hassle. Simple. Logical. Why is this thing being regarded as wrong?

 

[pascal]

Morgoth

Interresting article below.http://polishlinux.org/gnu/drm-vista-and-your-rights/

Ethical aspect is even more dangerous. In the world of DRM, it turns that we cannot do whatever we want with the legally purchased products (like software, music, videos or text documents). What we can and what we cannot do is decided by the provider, not by ourselves. For example, a DRM-protected product can be disabled at any time by the producer if he believes that we violate the terms of the agreement. This means that your collection of “protectedâ€￾ music can be rendered useless (e.g. by decreasing the quality or even deleting the content) in a matter of seconds, without your approval. It that some horrible vision of a sick and evil overlord? Nope. This is an upcoming, terrifying era of DRM.

Now someone can invade your house without your consent and make all your CDs and DVDs collection uselles in seconds. No need of proof, judge or police.
All this using your money.

 

[ERP]

Now, now...why is DRM terrible?It`s just a means of protecting someone`s work...the next thing I`ll read on the internet is a petition for ppl to leave their houses` doors unlocked, their money hanging out of their pockets conveniently, their credit cards, with the pin numbers attached, on the counter and so on and so forth. It is not logical.

These darned movies cost money to make, they`re an investment, and unless you`re a moronic investor, you want to cash-in on your investment 1000%. Your investment is not that likeable to bring a helluva lot of profit, if any joe with an el-cheapo dvd-reader and a fairly ancient system can rip your content with ease, as is the case with current DVDs.What is the solution?Make it hellish enough to rip, and you`ve got a new income stream from the ppl not ready to go through the hassle. Simple. Logical. Why is this thing being regarded as wrong?

I don't think DRM in principal is evil. Authors have a right to money from there works.
The problem is the mechanisms being employed and there effect on ALL consumers (not just the pirates). Let's take apple fair play DRM as an example (to avoid the Vista argument), I pay more from the apple store than if I bought the CD, and in return I can only play it back on one of 3 PC's or my IPod. Apple has allowed no other device to play protected content. Since this actually has an impact on me it actually stops me from buying music fro iTunes.

I'll actually even tollerate DRM if it doesn't directly affect my usage patterns, and apparently most people likely agree given the number that download from iTunes. I want usable downloadable content movies and audio, I don't mind paying for it, but I won't do it, if it impinges on what I consider to be resonable useage rights. I think this last point is why DRM will inevitably fail, any hard definition of those rights will exclude some useage pattern some group thinks is reasonable.

Personally I won't buy HD media until I can copy it onto a media server and use it, Discs take up too much space.

 

[digitalwanderer]

And let's not forget, DRM = teh ebil.

 

[Albuquerque]

I'm certainly in agreement that DRM is not inherently evil. There are lots of good reasons to use DRM, and there are "better" ways to do it than others.

The only thing I'm here to disagree with is the stupid fear-mongering that seems to go along with Vista in every conceivable way. First Vista is crap because it's only about looks and gadgets, then because it takes up "too many" resources, next because it NEEDS a "beefy machine", then because SP1 will somehow be coming in three months, and finally because it's now somehow the dark trojan horse of the DRM-takes-all-apocolypse.

Anyone who proclaims to have any sort of computer-tech savvy can spend half an hour on google and dispell every bit of fear-hype-spin I listed above. It isn't about looks and gadgets. It doesn't take "too many" resources. It doesn't NEED any sort of beefy machine. I severely doubt SP1 is coming in three months. And it more than certainly is not some sort of trojan horse of universal-DRM that the first poster was linking to and Pascal is so vehemently (and without any logical backing) defending.

And in no way does my post ignore the (numerous) legitimate gripes about Vista. I'm not running it on my main rig at home yet, and I won't be until a few more things are fixed to my liking. But I'm sure they will be fixed, and I'm sure I will be purchasing it for all three of my PC's at home, likely before Q3 of this year.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Funny thing? Most of the complaints about Vista sound exactly like the early complaints about XP to me...

Some of the buzzwords might have changed, but the gist is the same.

 

[AlexV]

SP1 better come in three months time as MS seem to hate my guts and refuse to send me a darned Hotfix that I need...well, not as much as refuse yet, but sendind me in circles isn`t what I would call helpful, when attaching the crap to a mail would be easier

Anyway, back to DRM...the fact is we really have little direct experience with it, outside of the forum-mongering(which, somehow, I find hard to trust). All of this doodoo about ethical/moral implications is just that, doodoo...has anybody actually read an EULA lately?It`s not very ethical, newsflash. Of course I would be pissed if my paid-for content was erroneously disabled-but do you think that the media-world is prepared to take on an army of angry buyers, who would actually have reasons to go to court(hey, from what I understand, in the States going to court is like taking a dump, so that`s not an unlikely scenario), court where they would actually have chances of winning?

Even if the evil disabling takes place, I do think that it would be fairly easy to undo-prove you`ve gotten the crap legally, and I THINK(as I do not deal in certainties when it comes to uncertain facts, I merely speculate) that it should be enough.

Do I love DRM?Nope, I`m a bit pissed that it has gotten to this-heck, I love Relic, for example, who have given up using copy-protection on their games(and that didn`t seem to affect COH sales, maybe there`s a lesson in that)-but I see it as a, how shall I put it, logical evolution based on the state of things for the past years. Do I think crucifying Vista for every conceivable reason is mostly shitty internet backlash based on dumb-ass forum mojo?Yes I do(again, I`m not speaking about you pascal, I have nothing against you-you stated your point and I respect that)!

 

[pascal]

Relax Morgoth

IMHO:
1 - No DRM will have the flexibility to acomodate to most consumers needs and habits.
2 - Vista will implement one of the most restrictive version of DRM. You will completelly lose control of your PC. Thanks god I will be in a free country where Linux and GNU will probably not be illegal in the future.
3 - Saying that MS doesnt have any interre$t in a strong DRM is not very realistic.
4 - DRM infrastructure in place will contribute to an even worst pricing scheme and quantun pricing.

 

[AlexV]

I never said that MS has no interest in DRM...they`d be stupid not to, quite frankly. And the Linux and GNU argument...is quite irrelevant, no?It`s not like you can have AACS protected content under Linux, so you`re comparing different things.

What`s with the completely lose control of the PC?Why am I reading this only on boards, and no tech document or official presentation, not even between the lines(this is an honest question)?Will Bill actually get a chance to haxxor my stuff, and get a free look at my pr0n?I`ll bomb his 140 million dollar property in a heartbeat if he does that

 

[pascal]

The gnu/linux AACS protected content I hope will be a question of time.

DRM support in hardware is something MS is trying to convince the hardware suppliers, also a question of time. Today you already lost some control with HDCP, and IIRC people are talking about it for HDD (hard disk) connection too.

And remenber how to cook a frog: put in a cold water and heat slowlly.

I remenber a time we use to buy LPs and record our own K7 for the parties :smile:

 

[AlexV]

What control? Please detail.

It`ll be a rather cold day in hell when AACS related stuff will be implemented as open-source in an open-source environment. It could be added to Linux the same way it`s in Vista right now, but that`s not a Robin Hoodish power to the ppl solution, so I don`t think that would work for those harping against MS currently.

Perhaps I`m obtuse, but I still fail to see actual evil stuff going on. I do enjoy the discussion though.

 

[bloodbob]

God damnit, not this shit again.

Been there. Done that. Go play in the other thread. The REALITY is that ANY OS THAT EVER EVER EVER wants to play DRM content will have to be subject to the same limitations and issues.

This isn't Microsoft's doing, this is the big-wig media giants that enacted this crap. You know what this means? No Bluray and HD-DVD player for Apple, or any flavor of *Nix until they meet the same basic criteria (or it's eventually cracked and then released)

If you don't like it, then don't buy DRM'd media. But for God(s)'s sake, please don't pin this stupid shit on Microsoft.

XP doesn't have DRM and it can play Blu-ray and HD-DVD fine. I've already stated that in other threads. In XP it is the applications that have the DRM. So frankly can you please stop repeating this over and over again?

 

[ERP]

XP doesn't have DRM and it can play Blu-ray and HD-DVD fine. I've already stated that in other threads. In XP it is the applications that have the DRM. So frankly can you please stop repeating this over and over again?

And it's on XP using applications with DRM that AACS has been compromised.
It'll be interesting to see what the response of the group that issues keys will be.

Vista is about more than just AACS anyway it's about Encrypted cable and any other media MS can jam on there, with assurances of security. The only time the protected path is in use is while playing "protected content".

DRM will be it's own death anyway, the more restrictive the useage rights the smaller the market, but I don't really see this affects vista one way or the other.

In the longer term hard copy media is dead, whether it'll be pay to own or pay to play that replaces it remains to be seen. Personally I'd pay for either if the price structure and usage structure were done right.

 

[bloodbob]

And it's on XP using applications with DRM that AACS has been compromised.
It'll be interesting to see what the response of the group that issues keys will be.

Yes it is however it could be compromised exactly the same way Vista. As the as far I am aware all the AACS decryption modules are a part of the application and not the Vista protected content stuff. Basicly the vista stuff is there to make the application developers life easier after its been decoded and all the video audio stuff is handled in a protect way so people can't just dump the video/audio output and re-encode.

 

[standing ovation]

This isn't Microsoft's doing, this is the big-wig media giants that enacted this crap ... But for God(s)'s sake, please don't pin this stupid shit on Microsoft.

Getting Redmond to do the right thing (and obey the law) isn't THAT easy, as US, EU and Japanese courts will attest. Besides, the broadcasting industry is too fragmented to be this persuasive.