What does Microsoft need to change before we buy Vista?

[thestain]

Microsoft® Windows Vista? plans to enable the playback of next-generation premium content such as HD DVD and other formats that are licensed under the Advanced Access Content System (AACS) specification for all systems that it trust. Microsoft plans to work behind the scenes to help end-users systems become trusted and continue to be trusted by Microsoft and thus be able to enjoy the premium content they have purchased and are entitled to the "fair use" of, while assuming ownership of the content is the content providers and not the end-users.

To ensure access to this new content, systems must support the requirements that are defined by the AACS specification and the requirements of content providers.

Windows Vista fulfills one of these requirements through code signing.

System and device manufacturers must follow new code-signing requirements for systems that will support the playback of premium content. These requirements include:
All kernel-mode code must be code signed for a PC system to be able to play back next-generation premium content.
Components that run within the Windows Vista Protected Media Path (PMP) must be signed for the PMP to ensure access to premium content.
Display device drivers must include an embedded certificate that verifies a robust pipeline throughout the video processing engine.


Premium-content owners require a higher level of access protection than was previously necessary. PC systems and devices that do not comply with the policies that are associated with a given piece of content will not be able to play back that content. An example of such a requirement is that content can only be served to an identified kernel when it flows through the PC. An identified kernel has all of its modules signed by a trusted source

Systems must support the protection policy requirements as defined by the premium-content owners. System and device manufacturers are working with Microsoft to meet these requirements. In general, content protection encompasses multiple technologies, such as copy protection, link protection, conditional access, and digital rights management (DRM). Each of these technologies attempts to ensure that content can be used only in a way that is consistent with what the content owner intended.

Terminology:

Advanced Access Content System (AACS)is a specification for managing content that is stored on the next generation of prerecorded and recorded optical media for consumer use with PCs and consumer electronic devices.

Certification authority (CA)is an authority that provides certificates to confirm that the public key is from the subject who claims to have sent the public key.

Code-signing certificate is a certificate that is issued for the purpose of signing binaries.

Cross certification is the process of issuing subordinate CA certificates for existing CAs that link two root CAs.

Cross-certification authority certificate is a certificate that is issued by one CA for another CA's signing key pair (that is, for another CA's public verification key). Also known as cross certificate.

DRM attribute is a code-signing attribute that is provided by the Windows Logo Program. It verifies that the driver complies with Universal Audio Architecture (UAA) audio hardware requirements and allows the driver to handle protected content.

Discrete versus integrated graphics - A discrete graphics adapter is a stand-alone device, typically a plug-in board. An integrated graphics adapter is embedded in the system board chipset.

Identified kernel is a kernel in which all kernel-mode drivers on the system are signed by a source that Microsoft trusts.

Kernel-mode code signing (KMCS)the process of digitally signing software so that it meets the system requirements to be loaded in kernel mode. When used by vendors, KMCS combines standard code signing with an additional cross certificate that verifies the code's identity.

Media Interoperability Gateway (MIG)an extensible multimedia pipeline that is built on top of the new Media Foundation API and running inside the Protected Environment (PE).

MIG plug-in Media processing or content protection components that are meant to be hosted inside the MIG pipeline and PE to process protected premium content. Examples of MIG plug-ins are codecs and content-protection components such as decryptors.

Participating driver is any user-mode component that loads into the PMP PE and has access to unencrypted protected content that flows through a PC system to a final destination, such as a monitor.

Protected content is any content that is protected by some form of DRM.

Premium content is next-generation media content such as an HD DVD and other formats that are protected under the AACS standard.

Protected Environment (PE)is the protected execution environment in which PMP components run.

Protected Media Path (PMP)is an umbrella term for the collection of platform technologies that provide content processing. PMP is a platform for sourcing, sinking, and manipulating protected media content. Technologies that constitute the Protected Media Path include Protected Video Path (PVP), Protected User-Mode Audio (PUMA), and the PE. The PMP runs inside the PE.
Protected User-Mode Audio (PUMA)is the new User-Mode Audio (UMA) engine in the PE. It checks that the enabled outputs are consistent with what the premium content provider allows. PUMA-compliant code is identified to the system through the DRM attribute.

Protected Video Path (PVP)is an umbrella term for the protection mechanisms that operate within the Protected Environment on your PC to ensure that the various video outputs from the PC?such as Digital Video Interface (DVI), video graphics array (VGA), and TV-out?are properly controlled or protected in accordance with the content?s policy. PVP components include PVP-OPM and PVP-UAB.

Protected video path-output protection management (PVP_OPM)is a component that ensures that the PC's video outputs have the required protection for the Content providers or that they are turned off for the end user if such protection is not available.

PVP-OPM Legacy Mode Certificate is a certificate that replaces the Windows XP Certified Output Protection Protocol (COPP) certificate. From an engineering standpoint, this is a COPP format certificate. It is intended for use on Windows Vista only to allow COPP legacy applications to function.

Protected video path-user accessible bus (PVP_UAB)is a component that provides encryption of premium content as it passes over the PCI Express (PCIe) bus to the graphics adapter to keep the end user from accessing this content in any way that might conflict with the desires of the content provider and thereby true content owner per Microsoft.

Secure Audio Path (SAP)is the mechanism introduced in Microsoft Windows XP to protect audio content rendering. Windows Vista replaces SAP with PUMA. SAP-compliant code is identified to the system through the DRM attribute.

The PMP and Output Protection

The PMP consists of four primary components, MIG, PVP-OPM, PVP-UAB, and PUMA:
MIG provides content protection for Media Foundation applications. It is an extensible platform for sourcing, sinking, and manipulating protected media content. MIG governs policy usage and runs media in a separate process to ensure that media content is used only in a way that is consistent with the intent of the content provider.
PVP-OPM ensures that a PC?s integrated graphics adapter outputs have the protection that is required under license agreement with content owners. It provides reliable control of output protection schemes such as high-bandwidth digital content protection (HDCP), Macrovision, and Copy Generation Management System-Analog (CGMS-A).
PVP-UAB encrypts premium content as it passes over the PCI Express (PCIe) bus to a discrete graphics adapter. This encryption is required when a content owner?s policy regards the PCIe bus as a user-accessible bus.
PUMA provides a safer environment for audio playback, as well as checking that the enabled outputs are consistent with what the premium content provider allows. PUMA includes the same level of audio output protection management that SAP provided in Windows XP, but it is handled in a completely different way and takes advantage of the PE.

Manufacturers of graphics adapters must implement the required protection mechanisms on card outputs and must ensure that the associated drivers have robust control of those outputs. Manufacturers must sign a PVP-OPM or PVP-UAB license agreement to receive a PVP certificate, which must be embedded in their drivers. Without the embedded PVP certificate, Windows Vista is not allowed to pass premium content to the driver.
The following figure provides a quick summary of how components that are discussed in this paper interact in Windows Vista.

PMP Overview
Code-Signing Requirements for PMP Components
This section briefly summarizes the components and methods that are involved in signing code to support premium-content playback on Windows Vista systems.
Components that Must Be Signed
A number of components must be signed. However, the type of signing depends on the particular component and whether it supports next-generation premium content.
To satisfy content-providers? requirement for an "identified kernel," all code that loads into kernel memory in Windows Vista must be signed for identity to allow playback of next-generation premium content.
Display device drivers must have an embedded PVP-OPM or PVP-UAB certificate, in addition to the signing for identity that is required for kernel-mode components.
PVP-OPM certificates are required for all graphics devices.
Where bus encryption is required, PVP-UAB certificates are required.
All user-mode code that loads into the PE must be PMP-PE signed or signed by WHQL with a PE attribute. This requirement includes components that participate in PUMA.
If the content requires PUMA, kernel-mode drivers that load into the audio stack must be signed with the DRM attribute, which ensures that content that is not so protected by using Windows Media DRM cannot be played.

KMCS Requirements
KMCS is used to ensure that content is served only to an identified kernel when it flows through the PC. Microsoft considers a kernel "identified" if all kernel-mode drivers on the system are signed by a source that Microsoft trusts. KMCS is an important step that helps ensure great consumer experiences by providing increased device reliability and access to next-generation entertainment experiences. System and device manufacturers are urged to get their kernel-mode drivers signed.
Currently, the following signing methods are accepted for kernel-mode modules:
Signed through the WHQL testing program as part of a driver package submission. For further information, see the WHQL Web site, which is listed in "Resources" at the end of this paper.
Signed by the vendor, by using the KMCS process. This process uses the vendor?s code-signing certificate together with the cross certificate.


User-Mode Code-Signing Requirements
PUMA is the new user-mode audio engine in the Windows Vista PE. It provides a safe environment for audio playback and also checks that the enabled outputs are consistent with what the content allows. To be loaded in the PMP PE and process premium content, all user-mode binaries?including codecs, media sources, and media sinks?must be signed with a PE attribute.
Currently, the following signing methods are accepted for user-mode modules:
Signed by WHQL.
If the package that is submitted to WHQL includes a Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) driver and a related user-mode component, WHQL signs the package with a PE attribute.
If the package that is submitted to WHQL falls into the audio classification program, WHQL signs the package with both PE and DRM attributes.
Signed by the vendor, by using a PMP-PE certificate, obtained from Microsoft. For information on this certificate, see "How to Obtain Certificates" later in this paper.


Revocation and Renewal
After a trusted PE component has been released and installed on users systems, it could for a variety of reasons become untrusted. For example, the signing certificate's private key could be compromised. A component that becomes untrusted is revoked, which means that the PE is no longer allowed to handle premium content.

Microsoft provides a way to renew compromised components with updated trusted versions so that end users can once again enjoy the content they paid for that they are not able to due to Microsoft not trusting their PC's.

There are three renewal scenarios and provision is also made in the event renewal is not possible:

Automatic renewal. By default, Windows Vista automatically downloads and installs all critical and recommended updates.

Component renewal is considered a recommended update, this enables system and component providers access to end user systems to quietly update the component before it can cause any problems for the user without the knowledge of the end-user.

On-demand renewal. If the user has disabled automatic updates or has been off the network for an extended time, thus keeping components from being renewed, the end user may attempt an application to play premium content with an untrusted component. In this case, the application and not the end user will be notified of such an attempt and given the opportunity to initiate the updates the end-user has disabled and will be provided with a URL that allows the application to initiate the renewal process. The process is handled in one of two ways:
The URL references a specific Microsoft Update package. The process downloads the package and launches the Update Installation Wizard to install it or in some cases where the end user is or should be aware of this process, the URL takes the user to a Web site where he or she can manually download the updated version.

Not renewable. In rare cases, an updated version of the component may not be available, for example, the company that implemented the component has gone out of business. If the component is not essential, the PE can work around the issue by not loading the component. If the component is essential, the application is provided with a URL that directs the user to a Web page that has information on the issue.


Summary of Certificates and Signing Options
The following table summarizes the different types of certificates and the signing options for various components.
Certificates Used During Playback of Protected Content that Requires PMP

Component Certificate type required Certificate
use Example playback scenarios enabled Options for signing
Code signing Code signing HD DVD KMCS1, WHQL2
PVP-OPM Challenge-response HD DVD on integrated graphics adapters MFPMP3
PVP-UAB Challenge-response HD DVD on discrete graphics adapters MFPMP
PVP-OPM legacy mode Challenge-response Content that required COPP on Windows XP MFPMP
Non-participating kernel-mode driver Code signing Code signing HD DVD KMCS, WHQL
Participating user-mode display driver component PMP-PE Code signing Playback of protected content through the PMP WHQL, MFPMP
Participating kernel-mode audio driver components PUMA Code signing SAP content when audio service providers turn on this requirement. WHQL
Participating user-mode audio driver components or audio processing objects (APOs) PMP-PE Code signing Components or APOs can process protected content. WHQL, MFPMP
Media Foundation pipeline plug-ins (codecs, mf-transforms) PMP-PE Code signing Plug-ins can process protected content MFPMP
1 KMCS process, using a code-signing certificate and a cross certificate.
2 Windows Hardware Quality Labs testing program.
3 Media Foundation Protected Media Path.

Kernel modules signed with a test certificate are considered untrusted by the Windows Vista PE Authority. This means that the kernel is reported as "not identified" and premium content that requires an identified kernel will not play back.

Playback of premium content requires that only identified drivers be loaded on the system.
When content is loaded on a system, several checks are required to ensure the safety of the system. One check is for the presence of an identified kernel. When requested, the PMP performs this check by verifying that all kernel modules that are loaded on the system have been signed by a source that Microsoft trusts. If this verification fails, the PMP halts playback of that content and sends a message to the media application that includes information to help resolve the issue.

Premium content requires signed legacy kernel-mode modules.
kernel. Playback that requires an identified kernel cannot be played if the system contains any legacy unsigned kernel-mode drivers. To play this content, consumers must obtain a signed version of the driver from the vendor.

Summary and Call to Action

Kernel-mode driver signing helps ensure that end-users with Microsofts help and Vista will be provided access to next-generation entertainment experiences.

Call to action for device and system manufacturers:
Two general recommendations:
Sign your code. Even without the issues related to premium content, Microsoft recommends that software and driver vendors sign all their code.
Participate in the Windows Vista Logo Program.

For system and device manufacturers who create products that support Windows Vista premium content experiences, the following code-signing requirements must be met:
All kernel-mode code must be code signed. This meets that content-providers? requirement for an "identified" kernel. This requirement applies to both x86- and x64-based systems and includes both participating and non-participating drivers. All driver and application components that participate in the Windows Vista PE must?at a minimum?be signed by WHQL or with the manufacturer?s certificate. This requirement includes all user-mode components that are part of the PMP.
Display device drivers must include an embedded certificate for PVP-OPM (for integrated graphics adapters) or PVP-UAB (for discrete graphics adapters).

as edited and clarified by...

TheStain

 

[shortylickens]

I read all your post and I dont think I can come up with a suitable counter post, so I'll just say this:

The end user has been losing rights with each new generation of OS. The reason is because we dont care about our rights nearly as much as our features. The same could be said for cell phones and American Society as a whole, but that discussion belongs in P&N.

As long as people are willing to purchase millions of copies of the latest and greatest operating sytem from microsoft, that company can do whatever it darn well pleases. Which includes placing user needs and rights at the bottom of the list.

 

[P0ldy]

Apparently this comes from Microsoft -- a .doc file is available via Google. You can get Google's HTML version as the first link here (I tried to direct link and the AT board spit out the code poorly).

This is little news to people who have read Microsoft's EULAs (and most proprietary software makers' EULAs) that the user does not "own" what they have paid for, but what I find funny in particular is the phrase "are entitled to the 'fair use' of".

Where?

In America?

And what about the rest of the world, whose laws on "fair use" and intellectual property vary, sometimes radically? Is Microsoft going to be tailoring this "ownership of the content is the content providers and not the end-users" to each country's applicable laws? Is the rest of the world going to come under the shareholder-controlled intellectual property laws of the United States?

Seems so. What a despicable thing.

Thanks for the post, OP.

 

[mechBgon]

If you have a problem with an OS that can play back protected content, then you have a bigger problem than just OSes. The content providers are protecting the content, and requiring a chain of trust in order for it to be played back, on PCs or otherwise. So go ahead and tackle every TV manufacturer in the world while you're at it. Keep us posted on your progress.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
If you have a problem with an OS that can play back protected content, then you have a bigger problem than just OSes. The content providers are protecting the content, and requiring a chain of trust in order for it to be played back, on PCs or otherwise.

If you think that 'content providers' are just worried about 'protecting the content' then I have a bridge in San Fransico that I'd like to sell you.

Seriously.. It's just one lie after another one.

Their goal is to turn your computer into a consumer device like your television were they control what you can and cannot do, what you see and cannot see in order to maximize profit.

Everything to do with DRM _screams_ out that they would rather control your system then protect their intellectual property.. Because it will do very little to protect their intellectual property.. How they are going out about doing DRM is not technically feasible if al; they realy wanted to do was 'protect content'.

 

[Rilex]

So drag, your solution is that Windows not support Blu-Ray or HD DVD, it sounds like.

I'm sure consumers would just love that.

 

[Xonoahbin]

Microsoft is really screwing up. They're really going to hera it from a LOT of people if they continue to do this stuff. I guess this means that I can't backup a CD and play it on my computer? Blocking legal things to get rid of illegal activities isn't great. I don't think I'll ever upgrade to Vista.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: mechBgon
If you have a problem with an OS that can play back protected content, then you have a bigger problem than just OSes. The content providers are protecting the content, and requiring a chain of trust in order for it to be played back, on PCs or otherwise.

If you think that 'content providers' are just worried about 'protecting the content' then I have a bridge in San Fransico that I'd like to sell you.

Seriously.. It's just one lie after another one.

Their goal is to turn your computer into a consumer device like your television were they control what you can and cannot do, what you see and cannot see in order to maximize profit.

Everything to do with DRM _screams_ out that they would rather control your system then protect their intellectual property.. Because it will do very little to protect their intellectual property.. How they are going out about doing DRM is not technically feasible if al; they realy wanted to do was 'protect content'.

So you blame Microsoft for the existence of this type of content protection? Or isn't it true that they've just done exactly what the first paragraph says... they've enabled playing it back, provided that all your hardware jives.

If I bought a new Honda Accord and they said "oh by the way, since it's likely that America will be switching to ethanol in the next 10 years, we made it so the engine can run on gasoline but can also run on ethanol," then how is that a drawback? I can still power it with gasoline to my heart's content, if I have some sort of personal vendetta against using ethanol. I'm not going to hunt down a Honda rep and demand that they convert the car back to non-ethanol-compatible for free, just on the principle of the thing. That would be silly. And in the case of Windows, as far as I can see, you can break its ability to play this stuff simply by using a non-compliant video card or monitor, if it's that important as a matter of principle.

And if that's not the "right" answer, then the fight needs to be taken to the people who make the content, doesn't it.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Xonoahbin
Microsoft is really screwing up. They're really going to hera it from a LOT of people if they continue to do this stuff. I guess this means that I can't backup a CD and play it on my computer? Blocking legal things to get rid of illegal activities isn't great. I don't think I'll ever upgrade to Vista.

What you couldn't do, is make backups of your shiny new HD-DVD copy of Superman Returns. And you couldn't do it on Linux or on WinXP Pro or Win2000, either, unless I'm much mistaken. I don't even have a television, so I might be behind the curve on this, however... anyone?

 

[sourceninja]

Linux will have HD-DVD and blueray support just as fast as they had dvd support. If we can watch it, we can decrypt it. If we can decrypt it we can copy it. The same goes for windows. Nothing short of having a full time person assigned to watch each computer user is going to stop copywrite infringment.

 

[thestain]

What do the Content providers need to change before we buy the new HD content?

They need to respect end user ownership and "fair use" rights!

It is not that Microsoft has enabled the viewing of HD content.. this is PR, but rather what they have done to take away end user rights and control by use of the various platforms and embedded devices that can disable ones pc at the drop of a hat and.. like a good big brother.. well sort of.. acting in tyranical way that Microsoft asserts is for our good, it has so designed things that even if we don't want to call home, that applications can do so for us and on our behalf so that we can get into compliance, even if we don't want to. It has found a way to circumvent our control and redefine our ownership of what once was our property in order for us to enjoy the use therof as Microsoft has defined it.

longwinded.... hope it made some sense..

The Stain

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: mechBgon
If you have a problem with an OS that can play back protected content, then you have a bigger problem than just OSes. The content providers are protecting the content, and requiring a chain of trust in order for it to be played back, on PCs or otherwise.

If you think that 'content providers' are just worried about 'protecting the content' then I have a bridge in San Fransico that I'd like to sell you.

Seriously.. It's just one lie after another one.

Their goal is to turn your computer into a consumer device like your television were they control what you can and cannot do, what you see and cannot see in order to maximize profit.

Everything to do with DRM _screams_ out that they would rather control your system then protect their intellectual property.. Because it will do very little to protect their intellectual property.. How they are going out about doing DRM is not technically feasible if al; they realy wanted to do was 'protect content'.

So you blame Microsoft for the existence of this type of content protection? Or isn't it true that they've just done exactly what the first paragraph says... they've enabled playing it back, provided that all your hardware jives.

No I blame Microsoft for helping to push this techology.

They aren't some sort of passive player in all of this. They aren't just sitting there going:
"Oh, hey we are Microsoft are just enabling these features because our customers are requesting them"

NO. They are active praticapants and are very much behind convincing content providers that DRM is a good thing. They specificly took a active role in telling AMD and Intel how they should design their proccessors and other systems to support DRM more fully.

Do you remember 'Palladium'?

Palladium is the major reason why we now have things like Intel's VT and AMD's Pacifica technology. Then when combined with the TPM stuff...

Palladium was suppose to be a virtual machine environment were all the binaries were digitally signed and created a secure environment were software and media playback could happen completely outside the control of the people that owned the computer. Luckily it was one of the major things that got chopped off longhorn before it came Vista.

Of course companies like Intel aren't going to be interested in modifying their stuff just for one purpose AND since chips are designed at least 2 generations out then these extensions and TPM is being put to use as something usefull for creating secure and fast virtual machine environments using Xen and such.

Microsoft specificly when after music recording companies and tried to woo them with advanced DRM protections in a attempt to take away Apple's Itunes business. They created DRM scemes and specificly went after recording people to attract them. This, of course, also fell through since the recording agencies wanted to force Microsoft to set prices for music that ment they would be uncompetative with Itunes.

Make no mistake they are a major push behind the popularization of DRM.

Not only with technology, but also with political pushes.

If I bought a new Honda Accord and they said "oh by the way, since it's likely that America will be switching to ethanol in the next 10 years, we made it so the engine can run on gasoline but can also run on ethanol," then how is that a drawback?

No, that's not like it at all.

It would be the same as:
We know that your going to want to get the benifits of running ethenol in the future.
So we are going to push the industry to get rid of gasoline.
Then we are going to weld the hood shut on your car.
Then we are going to make it a federel offence to modify how the car operates.
And you can only get this ethenal from specific vendors in a method and manner that they dictate to you.
And also these people that want to sell ethenol to you will get special privilages to modify how your car acts, which is something that would be illegal if you were to do it yourself.
It also will be illegal for you to try to undo their changes.

Of course this is incredably stupid and doesn't make sense. But then most car to computer analogies are just kinda retarded.

Very different worlds, very different rules.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: mechBgon
If you have a problem with an OS that can play back protected content, then you have a bigger problem than just OSes. The content providers are protecting the content, and requiring a chain of trust in order for it to be played back, on PCs or otherwise.

If you think that 'content providers' are just worried about 'protecting the content' then I have a bridge in San Fransico that I'd like to sell you.

Seriously.. It's just one lie after another one.

Their goal is to turn your computer into a consumer device like your television were they control what you can and cannot do, what you see and cannot see in order to maximize profit.

Everything to do with DRM _screams_ out that they would rather control your system then protect their intellectual property.. Because it will do very little to protect their intellectual property.. How they are going out about doing DRM is not technically feasible if al; they realy wanted to do was 'protect content'.

So you blame Microsoft for the existence of this type of content protection? Or isn't it true that they've just done exactly what the first paragraph says... they've enabled playing it back, provided that all your hardware jives.

No I blame Microsoft for helping to push this techology.

They aren't some sort of passive player in all of this. They aren't just sitting there going:
"Oh, hey we are Microsoft are just enabling these features because our customers are requesting them"

NO. They are active praticapants and are very much behind convincing content providers that DRM is a good thing. They specificly took a active role in telling AMD and Intel how they should design their proccessors and other systems to support DRM more fully.

Do you remember 'Palladium'?

Palladium is the major reason why we now have things like Intel's VT and AMD's Pacifica technology. Then when combined with the TPM stuff...

Palladium was suppose to be a virtual machine environment were all the binaries were digitally signed and created a secure environment were software and media playback could happen completely outside the control of the people that owned the computer. Luckily it was one of the major things that got chopped off longhorn before it came Vista.

Of course companies like Intel aren't going to be interested in modifying their stuff just for one purpose AND since chips are designed at least 2 generations out then these extensions and TPM is being put to use as something usefull for creating secure and fast virtual machine environments using Xen and such.

Microsoft specificly when after music recording companies and tried to woo them with advanced DRM protections in a attempt to take away Apple's Itunes business. They created DRM scemes and specificly went after recording people to attract them. This, of course, also fell through since the recording agencies wanted to force Microsoft to set prices for music that ment they would be uncompetative with Itunes.

Make no mistake they are a major push behind the popularization of DRM.

Not only with technology, but also with political pushes.

If I bought a new Honda Accord and they said "oh by the way, since it's likely that America will be switching to ethanol in the next 10 years, we made it so the engine can run on gasoline but can also run on ethanol," then how is that a drawback?

No, that's not like it at all.

It would be the same as:
We know that your going to want to get the benifits of running ethenol in the future.
So we are going to push the industry to get rid of gasoline.
Then we are going to weld the hood shut on your car.
Then we are going to make it a federel offence to modify how the car operates.
And you can only get this ethenal from specific vendors in a method and manner that they dictate to you.
And also these people that want to sell ethenol to you will get special privilages to modify how your car acts, which is something that would be illegal if you were to do it yourself.
It also will be illegal for you to try to undo their changes.

Of course this is incredably stupid and doesn't make sense. But then most car to computer analogies are just kinda retarded.

Very different worlds, very different rules.

So Microsoft has spotted a niche in the market and they want to compete, is what you're saying. And how they're doing it will rub end users the wrong way, because it's finally being brought home to them that the content is licensed, and that the owners of the content can say how it'll be used. And now the equipment that is capable of playing the content on a PC is being built to enforce that, it's not going to be just an empty recital anymore.

Questions:

1) Do you feel that Apple is going about it better?

2) How would you fix all this, and what would the side effects be? e.g. abandon DRM and leave content 100% pirate-able? In practical terms, how would you go about the fixing, and who would you start with? Content providers, Microsoft, hardware manufacturers, or whom?


edit: also, I think the dual-fuel Honda is still a valid example because (AFAIK) the fully-trusted PC still can do what our PCs do today. You want to rip a conventional DVD and make a copy of it so your kid can destroy a replica, it should do it. Unless I'm misinformed, that is... but that's the reason for the Honda analogy.

 

[thestain]

From MechBgon [/quote]So Microsoft has spotted a niche in the market and they want to compete, is what you're saying. And how they're doing it will rub end users the wrong way, because it's finally being brought home to them that the content is licensed, and that the owners of the content can say how it'll be used. And now the equipment that is capable of playing the content on a PC is being built to enforce that, it's not going to be just an empty recital anymore.

Comment: Microsoft has in my opinion violated the spirit of Anti-trust laws for far too long with its EULA's. What it is doing now is far more than rubbing consumers the wrong way, it is asserting the enforcability of its EULA's that it has forced all who want to use its software to enter into, with little alternatives due to Microsofts Monopoly power. I think the EULA's should be illegal and ownership should not vest with the content providers, but with the end users. The point made in bold is an excellent point.. We as end users have continued to buy subject to these EULA's which assert content ownership and software ownership is not ours.. In our defense, what alternatives do we have? If we want to play certain games or run certain business programs, we don't have alternatives to using operating systems from Microsoft, which has successfully wielded its monopoly power accross the entire content/software domain in such various ways as to elliminate a competing Operating System that can run the same software as Windows can.

Questions:

1) Do you feel that Apple is going about it better?

Answer: Micrsosoft is doing wrong, Apple is doing wrong too! Due to the Monopoly control Microsoft has over the technology we use, it has made itself virtually indispensible and has secured Windows from any real competition. Most of us have really not had much of a choice in order to use the software for our business, etc., without consenting to the oppressive EULA's that have kept us the end users from really owning what we have paid for. Just like with the new "Trusted" hardware which will solidify Microsofts Technological control, we seem to be able to opt out, but where are the alternatives?

2) How would you fix all this, and what would the side effects be? e.g. abandon DRM and leave content 100% pirate-able? In practical terms, how would you go about the fixing, and who would you start with? Content providers, Microsoft, hardware manufacturers, or whom?

Answer, Anti-Trust Laws need to be enforced again! Pro Microsoft and DRM Laws need to be repealed and new ones favoring people over companies and content need to be passed in their place.

In order to fix all of this, Microsoft would need to be broken up and current pro DRM laws would need to be changed from coercing companies to comply or risk being in violation of the law, to favoring end user rights. Also, laws would need to be passed making the EULA's of Microsoft and other companies illegal and promoting the rights of end users over software and content providers.

Pirating is not the real issue here. It is simply an excuse or reason that Microsoft has jumped on to further its stranglehold on technology and this incredible system and platform that has been put in place will do little to stop "Piracy", just like the anti-piracy commercials we have to watch before viewing a DVD, will not stop it..

So..what can we do.. we can demand Microsoft change its EULA's and remove its DRM enabling software from Vista before we should agree to buy it.

The following is off topic:

It has to do with how much the Gates value your life compared to the planet and.. how maybe you and me not being on this planet is a big part of what they are shooting for and saying when they proclaim that they want to make the planet a better place.

google search.. Gates Buffett Population Control Population reduction etc..

It might not be a bad idea to get the word out on what Microsoft and Bill and Melinda Gates will be using the money for as well.. Do a Google search on Population Control or reduction and put Bill Gates or his foundations name next to it.. and see what you find. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Ted Turner and many other Captains of Industry, really think that our planet would be better off without many of us, end-users on it. It should be no wonder that our rights as people and end-users are not respected in the EULA's that Microsofts legal team says we must agree to, to use its software. When we read or hear the Gates Foundation say it is working for a "better planet" just remember this might be a planet without you and me, as a clear goal of the foundation is to reduce the World's human population. Also.. when you here of new immunizations favored by these same people against STD's to be administered to young girls and boys, just consider their goal is population reduction.. don't be shocked or surprised to find out that new drugs from Merck and others might have some serious population growth limiting side effects.


The Stain

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: thestain

It might not be a bad idea to get the word out on what Microsoft and Bill and Melinda Gates will be using the money for as well.. Do a Google search on Population Control or reduction and put Bill Gates or his foundations name next to it.. and see what you find. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Ted Turner and many other Captains of Industry, really think that our planet would be better off without many of us, end-users on it. It should be no wonder that our rights as people and end-users are not respected in the EULA's that Microsofts legal team says we must agree to, to use its software. When we read or hear the Gates Foundation say it is working for a "better planet" just remember this might be a planet without you and me, as a clear goal of the foundation is to reduce the World's human population. Also.. when you here of new immunizations favored by these same people against STD's to be administered to young girls and boys, just consider their goal is population reduction.. don't be shocked or surprised to find out that new drugs from Merck and others might have some serious population growth limiting side effects.


The Stain

I don't know the validity of what you posted here, but if true I fully support Mr. Gates in his future projects. There's too many people on this planet. Food shortages, water shortages, hours spent creeping along our roadways. It should be plainly obvious to all. But to accuse them of clandestine population control is ridiculous. You need to quit watching those HD movies and get some sun. The world doesn't work like it does in the movies.

 

[mechBgon]

Welcome to the reality of market economics. If the content providers want enforcable DRM, and the consumers will buy stuff protected by DRM, then Microsoft is going to get their piece of the action as the middleman. They're not dumb. If you don't like it, don't buy the protected content.

Trying to interrupt the system by going after one of the delivery vehicles (whether it's Windows or iTunes or set-top boxes) won't work. Look at the War On Drugs for proof that as long as people will buy, the stuff will keep coming. Arresting the couriers and drug dealers doesn't solve the problem, does it? Eliminating the demand, that's what solves the problem.

Trying to eliminate demand for high-quality protected content... well, good luck with that. I suspect that you'll be badly outnumbered by average non-geek Joes and Janes who will buy protected content, whether happily or grudgingly, even if they can't heave their HD-DVD movie into their new Dell and make 6 full-quality copies of it for their pals.

 

[corkyg]

Excellent response, mechBgon! Basically, we are users, not owners. And in some sense, we don't have owner rights - we have user privileges (shoved rectally a nickel a ta time.)

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I tell you this now. There will be a day when you install Windows and you are not given the option of setting up an Administrator Account. You will be relegated to being a "user" and if you want to install anything, you will have to call Microsoft so they can log in remotely and install the software for you.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag
No I blame Microsoft for helping to push this techology.

They aren't some sort of passive player in all of this. They aren't just sitting there going:
"Oh, hey we are Microsoft are just enabling these features because our customers are requesting them"

NO. They are active praticapants and are very much behind convincing content providers that DRM is a good thing. They specificly took a active role in telling AMD and Intel how they should design their proccessors and other systems to support DRM more fully.

Microsoft isn't behind the whole trusted computing thing (of which DRM is a small component of), a number of companies are (including Microsoft).

So make sure you demonize: AMD, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Infineon, Intel, Lenovo, and Sun Microsystems too. Don't buy their products. Avoid them like the plague. Bitch and moan about them. Don't support them, or anyone working on/with trusted computing technologies.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
If you don't like it, don't buy the protected content.

Next you'll be telling me to change the station if I don't like what's on the radio/television! Your audacity is unbelievable!

:beer:

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
I tell you this now. There will be a day when you install Windows and you are not given the option of setting up an Administrator Account. You will be relegated to being a "user" and if you want to install anything, you will have to call Microsoft so they can log in remotely and install the software for you.

Maybe then there would be more patched systems out there.

 

[thehstrybean]

I'm glad I'm a linux user.

 

[Kyanzes]

Personally I'm hugely UNinterested in that AERO engine of theirs. I mean who the *arghh* would use that for longer than five minutes? It's cool, it's nice, that's enough, let's set it back to "CLASSIC THEME". I mean, unless you are setting up the comps at a show, there is no justifiable reason to use it. Is there?

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: mechBgon
If you don't like it, don't buy the protected content.

Next you'll be telling me to change the station if I don't like what's on the radio/television! Your audacity is unbelievable!

:beer:

:laugh:

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
I tell you this now. There will be a day when you install Windows and you are not given the option of setting up an Administrator Account. You will be relegated to being a "user" and if you want to install anything, you will have to call Microsoft so they can log in remotely and install the software for you.

If that happens, I'm getting into my flying car and going over to Redmond to chew them out! :|

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: corkyg
Excellent response, mechBgon! Basically, we are users, not owners. And in some sense, we don't have owner rights - we have user privileges (shoved rectally a nickel a ta time.)

It's technological feudalism - you're just another serf working the master's land, with no real ownership rights at all.

Society as a whole is devolving..