56 replies to this topic

[Nvyseal]

From the Inq:

Quote

MICROSOFT HAS JUST made one of the wormiest excuses for an explanation of the Vista DRM infection I have ever read. It is one of the saddest attempts I have ever seen for a lawyer written piece of spin put out as a blog and these things should be content labeled.

Remember the MS suicide note about the DRM infection? Well, Microsoft tries to "refute" that with a stomach-churning piece of spin, but ends up confirming everything. Earlier I said that Vista wasn't for me, and I meant just that, for me, not that it wasn't suitable for everyone. Microsoft's latest piece just convinced me I was wrong, Vista is unsuitable for everyone.

HERE

From Vista's Team Blog:

Quote

A conversation has cropped up since the recent publication of a paper scrutinizing how Windows handles digital rights management, especially for HD video. I've since looped back with Dave Marsh, a Lead Program Manager responsible for Windows' handling of video, to learn from him the implications involved and to learn to what extent the paper's assertions are accurate. The following is an article Dave has put together to address the misconceptions in the paper, followed by answers to what we expect will be the most frequent questions in the minds of our customers. Leave us a comment to let us know what you think. -- Nick

Over the holidays, a paper was distributed that raised questions about the content protection features in Windows Vista. The paper draws sharp conclusions about the implications of those features for our customers. As one of the Lead Program Managers for the technologies in question, I would like to share our views on these questions.

Windows Vista includes content protection infrastructure specifically designed to help ensure that protected commercial audiovisual content, such as newly released HD-DVD or Blu-Ray discs, can be enjoyed on Windows Vista PCs. In many cases this content has policies associated with its use that must be enforced by playback devices. The policies associated with such content are applicable to all types of devices including Windows Vista PCs, computers running non-Windows operating systems, and standalone consumer electronics devices such as DVD players. If the policies required protections that Windows Vista couldn't support, then the content would not be able to play at all on Windows Vista PCs. Clearly that isn't a good scenario for consumers who are looking to enjoy great next generation content experiences on their PCs.

HERE


This takes a lot of reading, and also please read the comments posted on the team blog.
My conclusions are mixed in reading this. What are your thoughts? Please feel free to discuss it here

[Camaro]

I think you are opening a real can of worms with this Open for discussion, lol but on to the discussion, couple quick things just from looking into the opening of the blog, they state that theses protections are not new, they have been implemented since windows milenium, well some have, is that an excuse? cuz just because they add it an dont tell anyone, an it has limited functunality does not make it right.
an the second thing Im seeing they are talking long winded but never gettting to the point, is that a delibrate attempt to fool you into thinking you got an answer?

Of particular note to the gamers an builders
Will the Windows Vista content protection board robustness recommendations increase the cost of graphics cards and reduce the number of build options?

Everything was moving to be integrated on the one chip anyway and this is independent of content protection recommendations. Given that cost (particularly chip cost) is most heavily influenced by volume, it is actually better to avoid making things optional through the use of external chips. It is a happy side effect that this technology trend also reduces the number of vulnerable tracks on the board.

[Nvyseal]

Thanks Camaro, That was my goal here in opening a great discussion.

This weekend i had a chance to do some research on this DRM built into Vista. By the way it looks and smells, i see another force behind this. Can anyone say RIAA and MPAA?

I understand that the PC has to follow the same guidelines as a stand alone player has to, But can anyone tell me if the new MAC OS has the same set of standards in regard to DRM?

Now some more interesting reading, maybe looking at the other side of the coin....

More on DRM

And again more

[m.oreilly]

yep, the content providers are a**holes. there is still a chance that "protection", as has been outlined, may be downgraded, or fail to appear for that matter. i would hope "root-kit sony" and it's cronies would think twice about pushing forward with this, though you will notice intel are more than happy to spread it around...
enjoy your conroes, gentlemen

[Camaro]

all falls to the 2 main ones, others are just people's opinions on them, I personally think this is bad for microsoft, what could be a great O/S is going down as the worst ever, If they would have concentrated on the original points they wanted in it, an left out the DRM I believe they would have had more luck.

[Nvyseal]

Lets dig a little deeper and ask why Microsoft doesnt stick with making a great OS and let software manufacturers like Cyberlink and Winamp develop their own software. I think honestly MS might have crossed the line trying to bundle everything in Vista.

[m.oreilly]

cam, it's DRM or no HD...thank you intel, for the wonderful job you have done making sure our hadware will bite us in the ass

[Camaro]

Nvyseal, on Jan 22 2007, 04:09 PM, said:

Lets dig a little deeper and ask why Microsoft doesnt stick with making a great OS and let software manufacturers like Cyberlink and Winamp develop their own software. I think honestly MS might have crossed the line trying to bundle everything in Vista.

I agree, they want every part of the pie for themselves, look at the problems with Security company's they can not get access to the kernel to make the Firewall an Antivirus work an Microsoft says they won't give direct access, just use MS's built in firewall, an or Security programs.

Although I'm alittle surprised you would say such considering the fact you are trying to get this a Microsoft approved site or what ever it is supposed to be.

[Nvyseal]

Camaro, on Jan 22 2007, 02:23 PM, said:

Although I'm a little surprised you would say such considering the fact you are trying to get this a Microsoft approved site or what ever it is supposed to be.

I say it as discussion im not getting down on MS or deterring someone from buying or trying something

[Camaro]

ah,

[bluerip]

It's always just a matter of time before "things get figured out".

Anyway some very pertinent information on this and what is to come on some very good podcasts can be had for free:

http://www.twit.tv/SN

Look for Episodes 73, 74, & 75

really great stuff. Steve Gibson has a way of explaining things very clearly.

Edited by bluerip, 23 January 2007 - 02:44 AM.

[m.oreilly]

bluerip, on Jan 22 2007, 06:41 PM, said:

...Steve Gibson has a way of explaining things very clearly.

if he ever gets that bee out of his bonnet...

Quote

Another reason is that Steve Gibson's getting all hot and frothy over the issue. That alone makes me wonder how accurately it is being reported... Gibson's fond of sensationalising even trivial matters, like when he got a bee in his bonnet about Windows "raw" TCP sockets a while ago.

http://www.geekzone.co.nz/juha/2069

[chriso_86]

Good point scara. I am sure it will solve many compatibility problems that MS currently has. Sounds just like them, shift the blame elsewhere.