On a Vista blog, a member of the Vista team bounces around
Vista DRM. He's probably referring to
this famous Vista DRM article which totally blasts MS for all the content protection that will be forced down users throats, and how those who are not even using content that "needs" protection will suffer.
In other words, the auckland article blasted MS, and MS needs to fire back with some marketspeak.
In other words, the labels and the studios struck some sort of deal with MS. MS wants to play HD/BR-DVD discs and so MS handed the *AAs lock and key, regardless of the detriment. These requirements are from the *AAs, but MS is passing them on to the users.
MS is effectively saying "We've duped you before, and we're going to do it again." The "evidence" used to back these claims of "[in]significant consumer problems" is completely unrelated. The "widespread consumer use of digital media" in WinXP is typically DRM-free mp3s or uses Apple's DRM. #1 is iTunes, and #2 is eMusic. Every geek knows this, and nothing with PlayForSure (Napster, Real, or any spinoffs) is even close to competing. The thumbscrews are getting tighter.
Anyone who is familiar with closed systems knows how misguided this statement is. Look at most handheld platforms, where the manufacturers hold their SDKs under lock and key. You won't find any software outside of firmware hacks by geeks in a garage. MS calls it quality control - I call it profit-protection.
So rather than MS being the one's telling you "No", it's the *AAs telling you "No". In this "range of a la carte options" is there any option to enable for a significant duration before and after playing media? And, what happens when one plays audio while doing other work? Do you really need an answer? These are the same people involved with the rootkit scandal, and those who sue dead people, pre-schoolers, and people who have never owned a computer ever.
In other words, your fancy computer has just been dumbed down to the pansy power of a set-top box. Way to go MS.
Since the *AAs made this policy, Vista's content protection is used whenever the *AAs request it. Given the *AAs past history, this will most likely border somewhere around 24-7. Sony's rootkit would install software that ran 24-7, regardless of whether you were listening to the DRM-disc. This is how the virus writers and MMO gold exploiters used this kit for personal gain.
Wow, that was nearly 6 lines to say "Yes, playback quality will be reduced on video output." Once again, the content industry made these policies and will, from their past history, most likely enforce these policies to the max. It is true that 960x540 is actually better than DVD (which is typically 720x480). However, 960x540 is nowhere near that of 1920x1080 (the resolution of HD/BR-DVD). You're getting a quarter of the pixel data when authentication is not found.
Once again, multiple lines to say something simple: "Yes, content protection will increase graphics card cost and it will reduce the number of build options." MS thinks "optional" hardware is so bad, right? MS must think this is the case with their X360, as the hard drive is optional and so is the HD-DVD drive.
Thats the first straight-forward answer we've received so far. However, I see why there is a technical requirement for all this content protection. Ah, yes. That's because there isn't one. The requirement is completely legal, and it's because the *AAs want to sell you back your fair use. And we're not getting additional functionality - Nick just told us above that our computers were being dumbed down to the weakness of a standalone set-top box.
WinXP doesn't support DVD out of the box. You'll need some driver installed, typically with CyberLink's PowerDVD or WinDVD. Most consumers who bought their PC from big retailers paid for PowerDVD or WinDVD in their total. In other words, a policy was invented, just so a fee could be charged. The policy is being extended this time.
In other words, content protection applies to everything the studios/labels want it to, not just HD content.
Once again, content providers decide how you use your own content.
Revocation is when a driver or key gets hacked, and the content providers decide that key is no longer valid. The key will no longer work for any new media, thus requiring that you update your firmware. I can see it now:
W: Honey, we got that new DVD in, let's watch it!
H: Gosh Darnit! It says that our player got hacked again, and we need to update the firmware again.
W: What does that mean?
H: I have no idea what that means, but I know that this retractable cupholder is real cool.
Okay, maybe the last line is a little overboard, but the rest is completely plausible.
Because no one ever leaves media playing in the background while they work or play games...
..:: Windows Media Player 11
If you haven't looked check, out the
Windows Media Player 11 release notes. "Windows Media Player 11 does not permit you to back up your media usage rights (previously known as licenses)." If you want to transfer your licenses, you must contact Microsoft, or get permission from the content owner. In regards to all the media that WMP11 DRM infects, if your computer crashes, you lose your collection. This is made worse by the fact that since WinXP, there has been some copy protection mechanism in place that turns mp3s into "copy protected mp3s" when using Windows CD Burner (don't believe me? try it yourself... burn some mp3s to a cd using the windows cd burner, and then try to open those files on another computer).
Additionally, "[r]ecorded TV shows that are protected with media usage rights, such as some TV content recorded on premium channels, will not play back after 3 days when Windows Media Player 11 Beta 2 for Windows XP is installed on Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005. No known workaround to resolve this issue exists at this time." Something tells me that Microsoft is in no rush to create a "workaround."
..:: Conclusion
All in all, the Vista dev's response is loaded with marketspeak and indirect answers to embarrassing questions. MS just handed the key over to Hollywood, allowing restrictions much greater than what copyright law requires. The WMP release notes even stretch this DRM farther into user rights. This is completely and utterly unacceptable. One commenter succinctly puts it:
The big thing here is that MS Vista is unimpressive, and littered with DRM. It's like the county advertising that they're building a 20 lane highway, but the maximum speed on it is 15 mph, and this will be enforced by tracks that pick your car up and tell you where and how you're going to drive.
I already
debunked the Principled Technologies report that MS sponsored. Essentially, PT tested a single computer notably surpassing the requirements for Vista, and made the sweeping generalization that the effects in Aero are negligible on processor speed.
I'm not really a fan of Apple (they waste so much on advertising, and the hardware is grossly overpriced), but next time you look into a new system, seriously look at Apple and at least
Ubuntu Linux. Even Apple is still above all this content protection nitpicking.
Post Last Updated: Jan 23, 2007 6:30 am
