DRM in Vista

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: doornail
DRM should be illegal.

While I am very much in favor of consumer rights and fair use, you're taking a pretty extreme position there. Essentially you're saying that content providers should not have any right to control how their content is used. While this would be fine in a world where no consumers would abuse such freedom, that is not the world we live in.

Various types of copy protection and right management (digital and otherwise) have been around for a long time -- it's just that now that they're actually becoming effective, people are suddenly up in arms about it.

Well-designed DRM should allow consumers to do what they are allowed to do with the content, while preventing them from doing things that are illegal to do with it. If you're violently opposed to this, then you have issues with copyright law, which -- as you noted -- is a compromise between the rights of the content owner and the public.

Obviously, current DRM implementations are not perfect. However, the market seems to do just fine sorting out which ones are unacceptably draconian.

 

[Nothinman]

What do you mean I need to buy a new expensive TV to view it in color? Why cant I get the color content on my old B/W monitor?

That's a terrible analogy, akin to complaining that you can't run 1600x1200 on your shiny new 15" monitor, there are technical reasons why that's not possible and you need better hardware to do it. But there's no technical reason why your current computer can't display HD content, it's just like how MS makes you pay for Server editions of Windows if you have more than 2 CPUs or more than 4G of memory. There's no technical reason why it shouldn't work, it's purely an artificial limitation imposed by some company in order to make more money.

 

[P0ldy]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
This is not Microsoft's decision, and in fact MS has said they are preferentially backing HD-DVD partially because of DRM issues with Blu-Ray.

Sure, why wouldn't they? HD-DVD == Xbox360, while Blu-Ray == PS3.

Don't forget that important part of their decision.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: STaSh

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: STaSh

I don't watch DVD's on my PC so I could deal with my monitor not being compliant but my TV is not an option.

You don't need HDCP to watch your existing DVD collection on either display.

Thanks for the info. By the way, did you know that water is wet? :roll:

:roll: yourself.

If you knew that, then why did you post the above?

Oh STFU already. My response to your post was appropriate. In fact, you've offered nothing to this thread so go away.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

What do you mean I need to buy a new expensive TV to view it in color? Why cant I get the color content on my old B/W monitor?

That's a terrible analogy, akin to complaining that you can't run 1600x1200 on your shiny new 15" monitor, there are technical reasons why that's not possible and you need better hardware to do it. But there's no technical reason why your current computer can't display HD content, it's just like how MS makes you pay for Server editions of Windows if you have more than 2 CPUs or more than 4G of memory. There's no technical reason why it shouldn't work, it's purely an artificial limitation imposed by some company in order to make more money.

Okay so it is a bit extreme since it's not a technical limitation; but from a logical functionality perspective it's the same thing.

Though AFAIK this is only an issue w/ computer monitors; most of the TVs that support 1080 also support HD-DVD.

Again I'm not in any rush to buy any of it...

 

[Robor]

I think a lot of people are missing the issue (or should I say my gripe) here. It's one thing if you have a newer TV or monitor that isn't HD compatible and aren't in a rush to buy one. You can't display the content without a display upgrade anyway. It's another if you've already got a recent monitor/TV that is physically capable of displaying the upcoming HD formats but will be unable to do it because it's not HDCP compatible.

 

[stash]

Oh STFU already. My response to your post was appropriate. In fact, you've offered nothing to this thread so go away.

Your response made no sense. Get over yourself.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: STaSh

Oh STFU already. My response to your post was appropriate. In fact, you've offered nothing to this thread so go away.

Your response made no sense. Get over yourself.

Whatever... You accused me of wanting a way to get around DRM so I could pirate. Why? Because you were quick to judge and you were wrong. Admit it or shut up and stop posting.

 

[stash]

I don't have to admit anything. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it, you posted:

That's good to hear. Hopefully these (boxes that strip encryption) will be available here in the US through a friend of a friend or something like that. Like I said, it's one thing for a company to protect their content but it's another thing to expect consumers to replace very expensive hardware in order to view it.

So because you think it is unfair to expect consumers to upgrade their hardware to view protected content (and you may have a point), you feel that an underground market dealing in illegal decryption devices is justified. And people wonder why we have DRM to begin with. Even if you pay for the content, you don't have the right to circumvent the delivery mechanisms. You may have no intentions of doing anything with the unencrypted stream except direct it into your non-HDCP display. But you could just as easily copy and redistribute the content. Either way, you are circumventing DRM and violating copyright laws.

So rather than attempt to participate in quasi-intelligent debate, you chose to attack me and tell me to STFU. Your argument is flawed, so you fling insults to divert attention from it. What was it that you have offered to this thread, exactly?

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: doornail
DRM should be illegal.

While I am very much in favor of consumer rights and fair use, you're taking a pretty extreme position there. Essentially you're saying that content providers should not have any right to control how their content is used.

And some of us would argue that the concepts (not the precise laws) of moral rights and of free speech are in opposition, and that free speech should have more precedence.

While this would be fine in a world where no consumers would abuse such freedom, that is not the world we live in.

Various types of copy protection and right management (digital and otherwise) have been around for a long time -- it's just that now that they're actually becoming effective, people are suddenly up in arms about it.

No, I would claim that it's the other way around, that the great DRM of the past---namely, the high cost of copying information---is no longer effective; and now that the truth of the matter, that idea is no longer fixed to a single form or object, is revealed, copyright seems unreasonable.

Well-designed DRM should allow consumers to do what they are allowed to do with the content, while preventing them from doing things that are illegal to do with it.

A well-designed DRM implementation should be advisory in nature, not compulsory. Hell, obliterate the anti-circumvention provisions on the DMCA, and one would have a deal on this issue.

If you're violently opposed to this, then you have issues with copyright law, which -- as you noted -- is a compromise between the rights of the content owner and the public.

Anything from the Berne Convention and after has been utterly unilateral and as far from compromise as possible. Life of the author plus 50^H^H70^H^H90 years?! Are you fscking kidding me? That may have worked 100 years ago, but that length of time is obscenely long when you consider the speed at which information moves today. And do remember, the trend over the past 50 years has been to extend that period of time. Retroactively, might I remind you.

Obviously, current DRM implementations are not perfect. However, the market seems to do just fine sorting out which ones are unacceptably draconian.

The market is only guaranteed to work in the presence of perfect information. True, this is impossible outside of theory; but it is to the advantage of the copyrights' holders to spread misinformation, so in order to counter this, making people actively aware of the issue is the best course of action (as I see it). In other words, I would not leave the market to its own devices and just hope for the best.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: STaSh
I don't have to admit anything. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it, you posted:

That's good to hear. Hopefully these (boxes that strip encryption) will be available here in the US through a friend of a friend or something like that. Like I said, it's one thing for a company to protect their content but it's another thing to expect consumers to replace very expensive hardware in order to view it.

So because you think it is unfair to expect consumers to upgrade their hardware to view protected content (and you may have a point), you feel that an underground market dealing in illegal decryption devices is justified. And people wonder why we have DRM to begin with. Even if you pay for the content, you don't have the right to circumvent the delivery mechanisms. You may have no intentions of doing anything with the unencrypted stream except direct it into your non-HDCP display. But you could just as easily copy and redistribute the content. Either way, you are circumventing DRM and violating copyright laws.

So rather than attempt to participate in quasi-intelligent debate, you chose to attack me and tell me to STFU. Your argument is flawed, so you fling insults to divert attention from it. What was it that you have offered to this thread, exactly?

Your words in response to my comments: "Why is stealing protected media good to hear? Do you steal cable rather than pay the cable company for a set top box?" I never said I was stealing protected media and I pay for my HD cable. That said, it was *you* were the first to throw the insults so if you want to talk about attacks just look in the mirror. I only responded to your (wrong) accusation.

Agree with me, disagree with me, it doesn't matter. We're all entitled to our opinions and I have a feeling that most people would agree that it's absolute BS to expect consumers to replace perfectly good HDTV capable TV's and/or monitors simply because it doesn't support HDCP.

Lucky for me, I'm fine. I checked and from what I read my TV (Sony KF-50WE610) is HDCP compatible so I can display DRM protected content when it's available.

 

[stash]

Your words in response to my comments: "Why is stealing protected media good to hear? Do you steal cable rather than pay the cable company for a set top box?" I never said I was stealing protected media and I pay for my HD cable. That said, it was *you* were the first to throw the insults so if you want to talk about attacks just look in the mirror. I only responded to your (wrong) accusation.

Are you familiar with the term 'rhetorical question'? I wasn't accusing you of anything, and if you think that was an insult, you have pretty thin skin. I was wondering why you thought it was justified to obtain an illegal decryption device. I still haven't heard an answer to that question.

I have a feeling that most people would agree that it's absolute BS to expect consumers to replace perfectly good HDTV capable TV's and/or monitors simply because it doesn't support HDCP.

I agree with that. Although there usually is a price to be paid (literally and figuratively) for jumping on the bandwagon of a new technology. As stated in this thread, most HDTVs of the past couple years support HDCP, and HDTV purchases have only really taken off in the past couple of years. So the effect of HDCP on consumers will likely be small. Those that jumped on HDTVs early, when they didn't support HDCP (and when they cost hideous amounts of money) will be burned, yes.

 

[acole1]

I don't like DRM, but the only way we can influence how restricted we get is by voting with our money. There is no way I am going to go out and buy a new monitor or TV for this. I didn't even get a dvd player until about 5yrs ago and I still don?t have an HDTV. HDDVD and Blu-ray won't catch on if we don?t let them.

The market is created by users, not producers. Eventually the both groups will figure this out, and realize that increasing restrictions doesn't help increase profits (the only reason why they are in business in the first place). They will start losing money by adding restrictions (example - Sony, the RIAA, and music sales going down). Buying Vista isn't the way to stop this though... its not like >25% of users will even utilize this feature anyway! I know I won't. Just don't buy the computer hardware that you "need" for it and put off moving to HDDVD and Blu-ray. Just because it is a new technology doesn't mean you have to get it

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: STaSh

Your words in response to my comments: "Why is stealing protected media good to hear? Do you steal cable rather than pay the cable company for a set top box?" I never said I was stealing protected media and I pay for my HD cable. That said, it was *you* were the first to throw the insults so if you want to talk about attacks just look in the mirror. I only responded to your (wrong) accusation.

Are you familiar with the term 'rhetorical question'? I wasn't accusing you of anything, and if you think that was an insult, you have pretty thin skin. I was wondering why you thought it was justified to obtain an illegal decryption device. I still haven't heard an answer to that question.

I have a feeling that most people would agree that it's absolute BS to expect consumers to replace perfectly good HDTV capable TV's and/or monitors simply because it doesn't support HDCP.

I agree with that. Although there usually is a price to be paid (literally and figuratively) for jumping on the bandwagon of a new technology. As stated in this thread, most HDTVs of the past couple years support HDCP, and HDTV purchases have only really taken off in the past couple of years. So the effect of HDCP on consumers will likely be small. Those that jumped on HDTVs early, when they didn't support HDCP (and when they cost hideous amounts of money) will be burned, yes.

My Dell 2001FP was purchased within the last 6 months and AFAIK it is not HDCP compliant. I wouldn't say that's jumping on the bandwagon either. Now I don't watch movies on my PC but what if I wanted to? There are plenty of people out there who do have recent LCD displays and watch movies on them and they are going to be screwed. That's flat out BS and if I was in their shoes and could purchase an illegal device to defeat the DRM I would. Agree or not that's how I feel and no amount of legalese or debate is going to change my opinion.

 

[stash]

That's flat out BS and if I was in their shoes and could purchase an illegal device to defeat the DRM I would.

Well at least you finally admitted it. Do you really think that circumventing DRM will cause the content providers to say "oh man, what were we thinking with this HDCP stuff? Look at all these people buying illegal decryption boxes...we give up, we'll stop encrypting stuff now"?

Everytime someone cracks a DRM scheme, it just leads to a more draconian, consumer unfriendly DRM. Honestly, what do you expect the content providers to do?

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: bersl2

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Various types of copy protection and right management (digital and otherwise) have been around for a long time -- it's just that now that they're actually becoming effective, people are suddenly up in arms about it.

No, I would claim that it's the other way around, that the great DRM of the past---namely, the high cost of copying information---is no longer effective; and now that the truth of the matter, that idea is no longer fixed to a single form or object, is revealed, copyright seems unreasonable.

This is the best take on it that I've read. Until now, content providers have not put significant effort into making their products harder to copy.

Sure pirating is bad, nobody's going to argue that. But that doesn't make drm right (strict legal interpretations aside). Spending hours of time obtaining and distributing movies before they hit theatres is a bad offence. I'd argue that putting in overly strict drm that uses technological mechanisms to limit value is no less offensive. Making a single copy of a friend's cd does no more harm in the long run than mild drm which people 'can live with' (I didn't see the riaa suing the average joe for copying cassette tapes back in the day). The difference is that the law happens to condemn one act while not making a statement on the other. But that doesn't automatically make one wrong and the other right and it doesn't mean that nothing has to change.

As for vista and drm, I understand that microsoft has to run a business and that it's managers are responsible for a lot of other people's money. The decision to play along doesn't surprise me one bit and if it had been my decision, I don't think I could have sacrificed business principles for moral principles (if I could I'd never have been given the decision in the first place). I don't think I could condone it either and although I can't tell for sure what I'd do unless I was in the situation, I think I'd resign. At any rate, I'll be voting with my wallet so far as I can manage and hopefully voting with my friends' wallets too, but I doubt that'll work too well :sigh;

Edit: fwiw, I don't use iTMS largely because of the drm (partly because I want something physical and partly because I don't want lower quality audio). It's a more intelligent solution than security-by-litigation, but I still don't like it. I do buy cds but even that concerns me sometimes.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: STaSh

That's flat out BS and if I was in their shoes and could purchase an illegal device to defeat the DRM I would.

Well at least you finally admitted it. Do you really think that circumventing DRM will cause the content providers to say "oh man, what were we thinking with this HDCP stuff? Look at all these people buying illegal decryption boxes...we give up, we'll stop encrypting stuff now"?

Everytime someone cracks a DRM scheme, it just leads to a more draconian, consumer unfriendly DRM. Honestly, what do you expect the content providers to do?

Admitted what? That I'd use an illegal device to defeat DRM if my TV/monitor don't support it? I thought I clearly stated that earlier.

What do I expect content providers to do? How about provide content without forcing consumers to replace expensive hardware in order to play it? I don't think that's asking too much. Apparently I was wrong. That said, I hope they fail in their protection method and hope it costs them in the long run.

 

[Shamrock]

from the horse's mouth:

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/30/msft_our_drm_licensi.html

Microsoft's DRM requires that device makers pay Microsoft a license fee for each device that plays back video encoded with its system. it also requires every such vendor to submit to a standardized, non-negotiable license agreement that spells out how the player must be implemented. This contract contains numerous items that limit the sort of business you're allowed to pursue, notably that you may not implement a Microsoft player in open source software.

The bombshell was Amir's explanation of the reason that his employer charges fees to license its DRM. According to Amir, the fee is not intended to recoup the expenses Microsoft incurred in developing their DRM, or to turn a profit. The intention is to reduce the number of licensors to a manageable level, to lock out "hobbyists" and other entities that Microsoft doesn't want to have to trouble itself with.

reduce the number of device licensors to a manageable level? So he is saying (for instance) Sony has to pay a fee, if they want their DVD drive to play in Vista?


also, NO MORE BETA DRIVERS!

http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=13388

ALL kernel mode code will be REQUIRED to be digitally signed!

With little fanfare, Microsoft just announced that the x64 version of Windows Vista will require all kernel-mode code to be digitally signed. This is very different than the current WHQL program, where the user ultimately decides how they want to handle unsigned drivers. Vista driver developers must obtain a Publisher Identity Certificate (PIC) from Microsoft. Microsoft says they won't charge for it, but they require that you have a Class 3 Commercial Software Publisher Certificate from Verisign. This costs $500 [EUR 412] per year, and as the name implies, is only available to commercial entities.

another discussion is hee:
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=64444

 

[Bluestealth]

I wouldn?t have a problem with cablecard technology as long as it didn't require that the entire computer be certified in order to use one. I am never going to buy some companies computer when I can build my own how I want it. Why should I be forced to?

What about Linux? Or other operating systems... if they don't support DRM then they are just left out? What if their DRM schemes aren?t certified? What if a certain product is only Vista certified?

I can?t wait for this to be broken, I really cannot. Between my brothers and I we own several hundred DVDs, and CDs. I was very angry when I got my latest Foo Fighters CD only to get a load of DRM ****** (though easy to remove and circumvent, installed when I pressed ?Do not agree? as well) installed onto my computer. All in an effort to listen to the CD in an MP3 format on my computer after legally paying for it.

From what I have read about the CableCard is that once I get it on my machine after being decrypted, it must be re-encrypted for storage. So what if then I want to stream that content to another computer on my network? it has to be sent over to that computer in the encrypted from to another computer that ?must? support DRM through a DRM aware application through my DRM aware video card and sound card, and then finally to speakers and a DRM aware display. Wait? can I even stream the content? Does my switch have to be DRM aware? Router?

In a perfect world, I should be able to setup a MythTV/BeyondTV server to stream the content to any computer after it leaves the Cablecard in an Mpeg2/4 stream. Cable companies deserve their right to protect their services. Content makers deserve a right to protect their content, but not at such a level that it blatantly tramples over consumer rights.

DRM is a mistake and as a previous poster said it should be illegal. How long until you can only play DRM licensed material on your computer/TV? What about home movies or backup copies? What those aren?t legal licensed copies? Why won?t this non-signed application install?

 

[doornail]

Originally posted by: STaSh
Everytime someone cracks a DRM scheme, it just leads to a more draconian, consumer unfriendly DRM. Honestly, what do you expect the content providers to do?

Honestly? I would like them to wake up to the digital age. It's all zeroes and ones. Trying to make un-copyable zeroes is stupidity made dumber by greed. You have to break computers to make DRM work and then pass laws to keep them broken while at the same time employing sleazeball tactics to keep the competition from delivering the product the consumers really want. The product you just broke.

Anti-progress.

Every innovation in media has created new markets. Content providers just need to think. Do you know someone is, right now, taking the biggest hit songs and distributing them free?

It's called radio. Made a lot of people rich.

Microsoft could be leading innovation but they don't. Everything new and exciting I see on the web is happening despite them. Blogs, Podcasting, RSS. These are people discovering the advantages of copy-able zeroes and ones.

DRM is not about piracy. It's the panic of people who sell snowshoes to control the weather before spring gets here.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: Shamrock
...NO MORE BETA DRIVERS!

http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=13388

ALL kernel mode code will be REQUIRED to be digitally signed!

With little fanfare, Microsoft just announced that the x64 version of Windows Vista will require all kernel-mode code to be digitally signed. This is very different than the current WHQL program, where the user ultimately decides how they want to handle unsigned drivers. Vista driver developers must obtain a Publisher Identity Certificate (PIC) from Microsoft. Microsoft says they won't charge for it, but they require that you have a Class 3 Commercial Software Publisher Certificate from Verisign. This costs $500 [EUR 412] per year, and as the name implies, is only available to commercial entities.

another discussion is hee:
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=64444

If you read the whitepaper (doc link) you'll see that this feature can be disabled.

While I think their policies are a bit on the extreme side here this is not all bad. It will ensure that you're not using drivers that have been tampered with.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: doornail

Originally posted by: STaSh
Everytime someone cracks a DRM scheme, it just leads to a more draconian, consumer unfriendly DRM. Honestly, what do you expect the content providers to do?

Honestly? I would like them to wake up to the digital age. It's all zeroes and ones. Trying to make un-copyable zeroes is stupidity made dumber by greed. You have to break computers to make DRM work and then pass laws to keep them broken while at the same time employing sleazeball tactics to keep the competition from delivering the product the consumers really want. The product you just broke.

Anti-progress.

Every innovation in media has created new markets. Content providers just need to think. Do you know someone is, right now, taking the biggest hit songs and distributing them free?

It's called radio. Made a lot of people rich.

Microsoft could be leading innovation but they don't. Everything new and exciting I see on the web is happening despite them. Blogs, Podcasting, RSS. These are people discovering the advantages of copy-able zeroes and ones.

DRM is not about piracy. It's the panic of people who sell snowshoes to control the weather before spring gets here.

Yes, and the FCC ensures that radio has a very controlled distribution mechanism. The content providers demand that radio stations pay royalties for distributing those "hit songs" for free. The stations make back this money through advertising.

That model doesn't apply to the Internet nor can it. By it's very nature, the Internet has no controls on distribution, which makes it so dangerous for copyrighted content providers. Blogs and podcasts are great, but those cost pennies to produce, so distributing them for free makes sense.

Films and music costs millions of dollars to produce. If you make film and music content "copyable ones and zeroes", the content providers cannot recoup the costs and are forced to stop producing the content. So what do you do? Do you want the film and music industries to disappear completely? How do you suppose they can make any money if their content is freely distributed?

And just for the record, I don't have a problem with DRM per se, but I have a problem when DRM intrudes on what I consider "fair use" (personal copies, for instance). The industry needs to tread that fine line carefully as Internet distribution and DRM become more prevalent.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: MrChad
Films and music costs millions of dollars to produce. If you make film and music content "copyable ones and zeroes", the content providers cannot recoup the costs and are forced to stop producing the content. So what do you do? Do you want the film and music industries to disappear completely? How do you suppose they can make any money if their content is freely distributed?

So be it. If it's too much of a risk to continue making and distributing content as an enormous industry, then scale back, or go out of business and get out of the way of smaller players who are willing to play by new rules.

I have my own pet vision of a future method for content distribution (who doesn't? ), but I'm too lazy to give a write-up now.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: MrChad
Films and music costs millions of dollars to produce. If you make film and music content "copyable ones and zeroes", the content providers cannot recoup the costs and are forced to stop producing the content. So what do you do? Do you want the film and music industries to disappear completely? How do you suppose they can make any money if their content is freely distributed?

Reality bytes, doesn't it? When cars were invented, did wagon makers and horse breeders complain and try to make cars illegal? Ok, so the analogy is a bit of a stretch, but generally speaking, when you offer a product that suddenly becomes outdated, the solution isn't to make it worse. The solution is to come up with some better way of delivering value. Hopefully the content industry realizes that drm is bad for both sides and that they may very well have to scale back in order to provide useful products. Look at the software industry. None of the open source companies are as big as the proprietary ones, yet they continue to offer great value and improve. If the content industry can't do this then I think they deserve to disappear.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: MrChad
Films and music costs millions of dollars to produce. If you make film and music content "copyable ones and zeroes", the content providers cannot recoup the costs and are forced to stop producing the content. So what do you do? Do you want the film and music industries to disappear completely? How do you suppose they can make any money if their content is freely distributed?

Reality bytes, doesn't it? When cars were invented, did wagon makers and horse breeders complain and try to make cars illegal? Ok, so the analogy is a bit of a stretch, but generally speaking, when you offer a product that suddenly becomes outdated, the solution isn't to make it worse. The solution is to come up with some better way of delivering value. Hopefully the content industry realizes that drm is bad for both sides and that they may very well have to scale back in order to provide useful products. Look at the software industry. None of the open source companies are as big as the proprietary ones, yet they continue to offer great value and improve. If the content industry can't do this then I think they deserve to disappear.

That's a terrible analogy. Movies and music aren't outdated; there's clearly still a very high demand for them. It's the delivery methods that are outdated, not the content. Cars offered a better and cheaper alternative to other forms of transportation and were successful. Open-source software, again, is in many cases better and cheaper than other alternatives.

What are your alternatives in music? Unsigned artists? I suppose the music industry could collapse and all of our favorite bands could peddle free downloads of MP3s they recorded in their basements, but I don't see that happening (the bands have to eat) nor is that something I would enjoy as a consumer (no more tours? no high-quality studio recordings?).

What are your alternatives in film? Small indie films? I like seeing Hollywood movies, and it would be a shame to have the entire industry reduced to small independent efforts. Maybe that's where we're headed, though.