Windows Vista Doesn't Like Your Monitor?

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: yllus
I'm really setting myself up for a case of foot-in-mouth-itis, but this is a moronic scheme that can't possibly be planned. Why in the world would MS or any other company verify your monitor to see if it should be allowed to play content? Common sense programming would mean verifying the file on the disk and that's the end of it.

HDCP is already used in the home theater world.

It's used to prevent people from recording from DVI/HDMI outputs.

Viper GTS

I knew someone would mention this, but the truth is that's a completely different situation. A TV is essentially a black box with outputs that need to be protected. For a PC, you merely manage the file on the disk and need go no further.

 

[minofifa]

yeah this topic is going on in the operating systems forum as well.

One point is that microsoft really doesn't ahve that much control over this. Its more astandard that the movie industry is forcing.

Like i said in the other post, i'm not going to pay $$$ to upgrade my optical drive to play these disks, my monitor, and whatever else. It will take a while for these disks to even start to be circulated in rental stores. DVD quality is fine for me right now (i still watch moives in stereo )

 

[aplefka]

I'd be interested to see if this turns out true. I, like most, can't find the logic behind Microsoft wanting to do this. Definitely seems questionable.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: yllus
I knew someone would mention this, but the truth is that's a completely different situation. A TV is essentially a black box with outputs that need to be protected. For a PC, you merely manage the file on the disk and need go no further.

It is EXACTLY the same situation.

A user who has a (assumed) legitimate license to content + unsecure link between display & source = potential for perfect quality copying

There is no difference whatsoever.

Viper GTS

 

[supagold]

Viper is right. This is no different that what is already standard on HDTVs. I don't understand why people are beating MS up over including a feature that will let you do more with your computer. The content providers obviously want these protections, and blaming MS for implementing them is unfair. If you want to get rid of this type of DRM, the best way would be to vote with your pocketbook; don't buy content that uses this DRM scheme.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: yllus
I knew someone would mention this, but the truth is that's a completely different situation. A TV is essentially a black box with outputs that need to be protected. For a PC, you merely manage the file on the disk and need go no further.

It is EXACTLY the same situation.

A user who has a (assumed) legitimate license to content + unsecure link between display & source = potential for perfect quality copying

There is no difference whatsoever.

Viper GTS

Nah, not the same at all. For a HDTV, you've got the data coming in from a blackboxed source (DVD player) and merely displayed. The DVD player does not allow other applications other than that to play DVDs to be run. The common sense checkpoint for a valid license or whatnot is at its output point.

For a computer, checking to see if your display is questionable or not is the last of one's concerns. Any custom code the user wants can have its try at the disc while it sits in the DVD drive, and the path of least resistance would mean breaking the disc's encryption and making a copy to the HDD for later reuse. That's your first line of defence. Verifying the monitor is a hugely wasteful bit of code, as that custom software the user is running is sure to bypass the check anyways. Better to protect the content on-disc.

 

[supagold]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: yllus
I knew someone would mention this, but the truth is that's a completely different situation. A TV is essentially a black box with outputs that need to be protected. For a PC, you merely manage the file on the disk and need go no further.

It is EXACTLY the same situation.

A user who has a (assumed) legitimate license to content + unsecure link between display & source = potential for perfect quality copying

There is no difference whatsoever.

Viper GTS

Nah, not the same at all. For a HDTV, you've got the data coming in from a blackboxed source (DVD player) and merely displayed. The DVD player does not allow other applications other than that to play DVDs to be run. The common sense checkpoint for a valid license or whatnot is at its output point.

For a computer, checking to see if your display is questionable or not is the last of one's concerns. Any custom code the user wants can have its try at the disc while it sits in the DVD drive, and the path of least resistance would mean breaking the disc's encryption and making a copy to the HDD for later reuse. That's your first line of defence. Verifying the monitor is a hugely wasteful bit of code, as that custom software the user is running is sure to bypass the check anyways. Better to protect the content on-disc.

You're assuming two things that aren't necessarily true:

1- The content will be coming from some kind of physical medium with a static protection scheme.

2- The scheme will be defeatable via some kind of DeCSS-like utility.

The content companies want this protection for downloadable media. This means that protection schemes can be easily upgraded to defeat workarounds. In this situation, the easiest method might be just to make a perfect digital copy of the info coming down your DVI link. Why do you think the content providers and MS are going through all this trouble? Unless you believe that MS and Warner Bros secretly own monitor companies and are just trying to force users to upgrade, I'm foggy on what paranoid conspiracy this is supporting.

 

[Xyclone]

Originally posted by: jumpr
This will not be included in Windows Vista. I guarantee it.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: supagold

Originally posted by: yllus
Nah, not the same at all. For a HDTV, you've got the data coming in from a blackboxed source (DVD player) and merely displayed. The DVD player does not allow other applications other than that to play DVDs to be run. The common sense checkpoint for a valid license or whatnot is at its output point.

For a computer, checking to see if your display is questionable or not is the last of one's concerns. Any custom code the user wants can have its try at the disc while it sits in the DVD drive, and the path of least resistance would mean breaking the disc's encryption and making a copy to the HDD for later reuse. That's your first line of defence. Verifying the monitor is a hugely wasteful bit of code, as that custom software the user is running is sure to bypass the check anyways. Better to protect the content on-disc.

You're assuming two things that aren't necessarily true:

1- The content will be coming from some kind of physical medium with a static protection scheme.

2- The scheme will be defeatable via some kind of DeCSS-like utility.

The content companies want this protection for downloadable media. This means that protection schemes can be easily upgraded to defeat workarounds. In this situation, the easiest method might be just to make a perfect digital copy of the info coming down your DVI link. Why do you think the content providers and MS are going through all this trouble? Unless you believe that MS and Warner Bros secretly own monitor companies and are just trying to force users to upgrade, I'm foggy on what paranoid conspiracy this is supporting.

I'm not assuming either of those things, it's merely the example I chose to use (and referred to files on HDD in my first post).

You tell me, what are people more likely to implement at home - a software solution that lets them make copies of digital media by downloading constantly updated encryption-defeating/rights-circumventing code built into the media, or a relative uncommon home hardware setup that allows capture of DVI input. Are these same users going to also capture the optical audio output as they make their near-perfect copy?

By end-user practicality and by cost, the protection should rely on file integrity. That's not to say they could not do other things as well, but it's protecting them against few enough people that I'd be surprised at the waste of MS coder work hours.

 

[Viper GTS]

BTW I tend to agree with those who think this won't be an issue with Vista.

How many people here have DCP capable displays anywhere in their home (let alone on their PC)? Now consider the general population that makes up 99% of Microsoft's end users. How much is this going to change in the next year? Probably not much.

If the capability is there at all it probably won't be widely used any time soon.

Viper GTS

 

[supagold]

I'm not assuming either of those things, it's merely the example I chose to use (and referred to files on HDD in my first post).

You tell me, what are people more likely to implement at home - a software solution that lets them make copies of digital media by downloading constantly updated encryption-defeating/rights-circumventing code built into the media, or a relative uncommon home hardware setup that allows capture of DVI input. Are these same users going to also capture the optical audio output as they make their near-perfect copy?

By end-user practicality and by cost, the protection should rely on file integrity. That's not to say they could not do other things as well, but it's protecting them against few enough people that I'd be surprised at the waste of MS coder work hours.

Well, the important point I was trying to make, and which you do seem to keep assuming, is that the encryption will be defeatable by some kind of software tool. Your argument seems to be that it will be so much easier to do defeat the protection by software, that to protect every step in the path the content takes is a waste of resources by MS. (Please correct me if I misunderstand.) However, it's important note that this is only the last step in the process for DRM-protected media in Vista. MS has taken pains to protect access to the content at every stage up until it's displayed to the user. Of course, you can't plug the analog hole, but they're trying damn hard to control the digital content. Which brings me to my next point: analog connections of every type are on their way out. It's only a matter of time before you start seeing recorders that take digital straight in; in fact, we'd probably already have them, if providers weren't worried about piracy.

In any event, I'm just not clear what the problem is here. I'm quite sure that it's not people worrying about Microsoft's coders putting in extra work. It's not like Vista isn't going to let you do everything with your monitor that you can do today. It sounds like this is a proxy argument about whether DRM should exist at all. Whatever your feelings about that issue, you have to concede that if you are going to implement DRM, it makes no sense to do it in a half-assed way that leaves huge holes in your protection.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak

Originally posted by: Injury
Would you rather have a 50/50 chance to live through an unesseccary surgery, or a 99.9/.01?

WTF does that have to do with the topic at hand???

Read the quotes. He said that the inquirer is right half of the time. What kind of decency is a 50/50 chance.

 

[Juno]

shens!

 

[Toasthead]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Solution:

Don't play DRMed video, and don't use WMP to play DVDs. And if it affects OTHER player software and non-DRM'd video, it seems to me that MS is opening themselves up to lawsuits from both content creators and software developers.

bingo

just another reason not to use WMP

 

[ajf3]

Here ya go:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/stream/output_protect.mspx

Engadget has an interesting article regarding a new feature in Longhorn entitled PVP-OPM (Protected Video Path - Output Protection Management) which detects the capabilities of the display devices you are using and manages how (and if at all) content is sent to it. In short, this means that if Longhorn detects that your monitor is not "secure" enough, then your premium video content won't play on it until you buy one that is. Who gets to decide? The content providers of course." From the article: "So what will happen when you try to play premium content on your incompatible monitor? If you're "lucky", the content will go through a resolution constrictor. The purpose of this constrictor is to down-sample high-resolution content to below a certain number of pixels. The newly down-sampled content is then blown back up to match the resolution of your monitor. This is much like when you shrink a JPEG and then zoom into it. Much of the clarity is lost. The result is a picture far fuzzier than it need be."

 

[n7]

Thread in Video

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak

Originally posted by: Injury
Would you rather have a 50/50 chance to live through an unesseccary surgery, or a 99.9/.01?

WTF does that have to do with the topic at hand???

Read the quotes. He said that the inquirer is right half of the time. What kind of decency is a 50/50 chance.

I know what he was referring to. But wtf does a 99/.01 chance at surviving surgey have to do with The Inquirer being right 50/50. It was a fvcking stupid analogy and the poster is a moron. That was my point, genius

 

[Mojoed]

Originally posted by: n7
Thread in Video

:thumbsup:

 

[treemonkey]

How long til the release? I can't wait to see the BSOD in HD!

 

[jpeyton]

I'm not sure what the fuss is about. If you buy DRM encoded video (i.e. video that requires a HDCP compliant display), then you better have a compatible display for it. Don't have a HDCP compliant display? Don't buy DRM encoded video.

Did you guys think that the big media corps introduced HDCP just for fun? Nope. They don't want their next generation HD-DVD content to go unprotected to your TV or your computer monitor.

Does this mean it won't be cracked? Heck no. For enthusiasts like you and me, this is a pebble on the road. For Joe Six Pack and his spyware infested computer, it means he's going to buy a new display.

 

[yhelothar]

These news sites are probably just twisting the truth to make it sound very bad.
There are already movies that requires HDCP. Microsoft just adds support for HDCP for these current movies that has HDCP. You can still play all the videos you have now that doesn't have HDCP with your regular monitor. It's not like you can play HDCP videos on your winxp anyways. So it doesn't make a difference.

 

[mobobuff]

Read this. Has pretty much all the details on this you could possibly want.

Sounds like a lot of this sh!t is going to be taking up your CPU cycles to make sure you aren't running "rogue" software. This sounds like it's getting WAY out of hand. It's ridiculous. Hollywood doesn't even want their precious video going unencrypted over the little tiny wires in your motherboard between your CPU and video card. How much money can they possibly be losing to people setting up complex line-recording devices? I'm sure they lose a lot more from people taking video cameras into theaters.

 

[thehstrybean]

If this or any other "anti-piracy" crap is on Vista, screw the upgrade...I was going to because the beta was nice and the interface was clean and sleak...

 

[TheToOTaLL]

"Display" & "Monitor" are 2 totally different things.

Microsoft isn't going to obsolete your 5 month old video card and monitor when the Vista upgrade comes out. It just means you'll need to get compliant video card driver to output "protected" content.

If you seriously think you'll have to have a "DRM-support" monitor, you've fallen off the bandwagon.

 

[slag]

Originally posted by: Injury

Source: The Inquirer

You left out that key detail that matters, because they are only a shade above the tabloids in journalistic integrity.

Read the comments at the bottom. It has been verified elsewhere as well.