MS Backs Down On Encrypted Digital TV Recording

karrde writes "CNet (and others) is reporting that: 'Microsoft has bowed to consumer pressure and pulled back from a controversial plan that would have encrypted TV shows recorded on forthcoming digital media PCs.' One could hope that this will be the first many decisions in this direction."

Comments

Follow through...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they will bow to even more consumer pressure and allow filtering of commercials.

But I suppose it would be too much to hope for...

Make up the damn minds

[ThundaGaiden]

MS has quiet a big dillema on their hands now :P 1. Make a product that the RIAA (Retarded Institute of Anti Anything) will be proud of or 2. Make a product that no one will want to buy... btw. What happens when it blue screens and you have to re-install (MS-Product , it's gauranteed) will you still be able to watch the movies you've already recorded ?

Hallelujia

[E-Rock-23]

Now all we need is for MS to back off and rewrite their EULAs so they don't have the power to just mosey in, make changes to your system, and never tell you a thing.

For DRM reasons, I wasn't planning on getting a digital TV. The more steps backward that MS takes, the more inclined I'll be to improve my TV viewing experience. Now all that we as consumers have to do is keep up the pressure and let Gates and Company know that we're not about to just give in to their ideals. See? If consumers just speak up, we can get companies to listen. It's not fiction, and this is just a small snippet of proof. I'm looking forward to more stories like this one...

Re:Hallelujia

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Now all we need is for MS to back off and rewrite their EULAs so they don't have the power to just mosey in, make changes to your system, and never tell you a thing.

They rewrote the WMP 6.4 and 7.1 security update EULA to remove the onerous "root access" provision.

Digital Rights Management. Content providers are using the digital rights management technology contained in the applicable OS Product ("DRM") to protect the integrity of their content ("Secure Content") so that their intellectual property, including copyright, in such content is not misappropriated. Portions of the applicable OS Product and third party applications such as media players use DRM to play Secure Content ("DRM Software"). If the DRM Software's security has been compromised, owners of Secure Content ("Secure Content Owners") may request that Microsoft revoke the DRM Software's right to copy, display and/or play Secure Content. Revocation does not alter the DRM Software's ability to play unprotected content. A list of revoked DRM Software is sent to your computer whenever you download a license for Secure Content from the Internet. YOU THEREFORE AGREE THAT MICROSOFT MAY, IN CONJUNCTION WITH SUCH LICENSE, ALSO DOWNLOAD REVOCATION LISTS ONTO YOUR COMPUTER ON BEHALF OF SECURE CONTENT OWNERS. Microsoft will not retrieve any personally identifiable information, or any other information, from your computer by downloading such revocation lists. Secure Content Owners may also require you to upgrade some of the DRM components in the applicable OS Product ("DRM Upgrades") before accessing their content. When you attempt to play such content, Microsoft DRM Software will notify you that a DRM Upgrade is required and then ask for your consent before the DRM Upgrade is downloaded. Third party DRM Software may do the same. If you decline the upgrade, you will not be able to access content that requires the DRM Upgrade; however, you will still be able to access unprotected content and Secure Content that does not require the upgrade.

MS bows to *HP* pressure

[kawika]

Read the article. Sony already has a competing product that doesn't strip our fair use rights. HP probably pressured Microsoft on this point pretty heavily. If it comes down to a contest over what the well-funded geek buys for the holidays, HP knew that Sony would win. I'm sure that MS still wants to kiss up to Hollywood, but they can't ignore their customer and they didn't want to take the blame for poor sales if they held firm.

You know how this is going to work...

[mhesseltine]

1. MS bows to public pressure against encrypted recording
2. MS releases recording software
3. Public finds huge gaping security hole / bug in software
4. MS releases SP1 containing, you guessed it, encryption software for recording
5. Public is left with three options
   • Patch up to the encrypted version
   • Leave their system open
   • Find some new software

Knowing what we know about the general public, which do you think is going to happen?

Re:You know how this is going to work...

[Safety Cap]

The real answer is

* Leave their system open

Heck, BugBear is such a big deal only because nobody bothered to apply a security patch that was issued 18 months ago!

But DVI will do this

[Doppler00]

I recently read an article explaining how the DVI interface works and how they plan on implementing an encryption system in future versions. Essentially, the HDTV will have an encryption key key and the output device will have a key. This should (in theory) completly prevent someone from copying the digital signal with another device. What does this mean for people who currently own HDTV's? They may not be compatible with new signals and thus you will be required to buy a new one or have to use a lower quality analog signal. They media and electronics industries don't need Microsoft to restrict fair use rights.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, it's just where the industry is headed.

Re:But DVI will do this

[kableh]

Except someone CLAIMED to have cracked HDCP (the encryption you are speaking of) ages ago.

My only hope, is that this trend continues, and consumers realize they shouldn't have to compromise their convenience for Hollywood's sake.

Cracks are forming in DRM finally

[Arcturax]

It is good to see "digital rights massacre" plans starting to fall apart. First several high profile bills aimed to restore fair use and reign in the DMCA and now this.

I think that those with power in the industry are finally starting to see that the natives are indeed getting restless over this and realizing that they are headed for some extremely major consumer backlash if they press ahead with current DRM proposals.

Of course, it is not time to party just yet as the MPAA and RIAA have yet to acknowledge the clue stick which everyone and their brother has been whacking them with for the past 4 years, but if Microsoft and some members of Congress are starting to see the light, then anything is possible.

Once campaign finance reform kicks in and if voters give the Senetors and Reps from Disney/MPAA/RIAA the smackdown at the polls they so richly deserve, we might see the pendulum swing back our way again in the next 3-5 years.

Re:This can't be good.

[mbogosian]

Microsoft did something in the best interests of the consumer. Isn't that a sign of the apocalypse?

No, it's a sign that:

a.) the consumer was wrong
b.) MS has found another way to do the same thing without the consumer finding out
c.) all of the above

Seriously, though, this has happened before. Just keep an eye out in the future.

DON'T BE FOOLED!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry for the caps. but don't be fooled. it still need media player 9. they're going to seed the world with media player 9, then all they have to do is turn on the DRM.

Also, just as it is, all the broadcasters have to do is turn on recording restricitons on their side.

So don't be fooled. the dangers to our fair use rights (or priveledges as some would call it) are very real.

You're mistaken

[burgburgburg]

Microsoft did something in the best interests of Microsoft. Helping consumers was an unfortunate, inadvertent side effect that they'll be sure to rectify as soon as they've sold enough of them. Probably with a "security" patch.Read those EULAs

Yeah, right

[Wes Janson]

The public doesn't care about it's rights (the ones they don't know they have in particular). Unless someone educates them, they will be perfectly fine with DRM and anything Microsoft pulls. Being as how they represent the majority of the market, Microsoft has no reason to care about the opinions of the few.

Re:Yeah, right

[Citizen of Earth]

The public doesn't care about it's rights (the ones they don't know they have in particular).

The public will get a crash course in caring about their rights when they press the record button on their brand new toy and it says "Permission denied". The citizens may not care much when the government steps on various rights and starts wars, but there will be bloody revolution in the air if anything happens to television.

Not 100% correct

[BagOBones]

According to http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10 738,2884933,00.html MS will still lock the content if the recorder picksup the special copyprotection marker in the broadcast... So as soon as the content providers turn this on have fun sitting infrunt of your multimeda PC watching your shows.

The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail?

[Jugalator]

Will the market really tolerate Palladium?

An interesting newsgroup thread over at Google News.

It's a question I've been asking myself. I mean, how will Microsoft succeed with their plans? Which manufacturer wish to be the first to have a huge disadvantage by supplying the initial Palladium-supporting hardware? How can we be sure that the manufacturers are simply going to release hardware supporting Palladium? Won't it just work like in the past instead, where mp3 players made it easier for piracy and DVD players often can be made region free, by a simple flip of a jumper? Where CD-burners often support low-level duplication and overburning they don't *need* to support, but manufacturers *know* that they're more likely to sell if their drive support CloneCD and similar programs that's used in 9 cases out of 10 for piracy. They never admit it, but everyone knows it.

How will Palladium suddenly change this philosophy of the manufacters? Won't they be tempted to go the "dirty" path (of course not officially; they'll just "not include Palladium support") by looking into the enormous public interest that will arise in hardware not supporting hardware copy protections?

Re:The follow-up question: Will Palladium fail?

[kcbrown]

How will Palladium suddenly change this philosophy of the manufacters? Won't they be tempted to go the "dirty" path (of course not officially; they'll just "not include Palladium support") by looking into the enormous public interest that will arise in hardware not supporting hardware copy protections?

They will, initially, but the reason is that people need to be able to run the currently available operating systems on new hardware. So hardware manufacturers will implement Palladium in their hardware but will make it possible to disable it.

For now.

Once most people are running Palladium-capable operating systems (Microsoft will see to that), hardware manufacturers can get away with removing the ability to turn Palladium off. Only the fringe will care, and those people don't represent a large enough population to make the difference.

Understand this: the hardware manufacturers only care about their bottom line. If they can force people to upgrade their hardware, thereby generating more business than they would have had otherwise, they'll do it, and it doesn't matter how bad for the customer the method they use is. If other interests (the MPAA, the RIAA) pay them more than enough to offset the loss in business, they'll do it.

But my bet is that Palladium-required hardware will come at exactly the same time that legislation requiring its use is passed. Since the large corporations control our government, this will happen.

MS didn't back down all the way

[Anonymous Coward]

From ZDNet: Why Microsoft caved in on copy protection:

The Media Center software has been changed so that now the copyright owner, not Microsoft, gets to decide whether a particular TV program will be "encrypted to the hard drive"--meaning, "unable to be viewed on a different PC or DVD player."

THIS IS DONE by making the Media Center software cognizant of a television standard called Copy Generation Management System for Analog (CGMS-A). If a couple of bits in a program's CGMS-A settings are switched on, Media Center PCs will encrypt the program, making it unplayable on anything but the recording PC. Leave them unflipped, and the program remains copyable. Microsoft says its testing found no television programming with the encryption bits turned on.

Re:MS didn't back down all the way

[captaineo]

I don't think these "copy flag bits" are going to work. All broadcasters will simply hard-code the flags to "no copy" all the time. And then we are back to square one...

In order for this to work, Congress must pass a law that enshrines "fair use" as a guaranteed right that must be allowed by any copy-prevention system.

Also, any stream that contains "copy flag bits" must be required to include the expiration date of the copyright. Copy-prevention systems must be required to freely decrypt material that has entered the public domain.

A "copy flag bit" that doesn't also include an expiration date clearly violates the "limited Times" clause of the US Constitution.

Does anyone know if CSS-scrambled DVDs or WMA-scrambled audio streams include a copyright expiration date? I don't think so...

Consumers were just too stupid to "understand" it.

[Black Copter Control]

"Let me get this straight: You want me to pay more money for software that gives me less functionality? why?

When Microsoft realized that consumers couldn't "understand" their logic behind crippling the capabilities of our home computers, they gave up trying to sell people on the lack of functionality.

They didn't do this because it was good for consumers, they did it because their crippleware was effectively unsellable. Anybody who got a box with this software would simply install something that worked and thus lessen Microsoft's market share in this area. Something that comsumers don't buy is bad for Microsoft. That's all that really matters to Microsoft.

MUstickD: From the same company...

[rusty0101]

...which is loudly proclaming the death of TiVo, claiming setup is too hard.... Go to the bottom of the Slate page, and you will find:

©2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use Advertise TRUSTe Approved Privacy Statement GetNetWise

For some reason I have the feeling that there is a bit of garbage floating around somewhere in one or both of these articles.

-Rusty

Keep It Simple, Stupid?

[sssmashy]

Microsoft sees Media Center PCs as ideal for college students or young urbanites living in cramped spaces where a combination computing and entertainment system might be more appealing than separate devices.

The fact that MSFT backed down on this issue is just another sign of desperation. They must be wondering whether there's any demand at all for Media Center PCs... because there sure as hell isn't demand for recording shows that can only be played back on your crappy monitor.

Microsoft's obsession with "convergence" is ridiculous. Apparently their target market consists of "young urbanites" and starving students who live in living spaces so cramped that they couldn't possibly squeeze in a separate VHR or DVR... so they're willing to put up with the hassle of recording shows on their hard drive, bogging down their PCs as they pound out a late night term paper. Don't forget the logistical nightmare of bringing their recorded shows over to Bob's house so they can watch it with buddies and beer (remember, their living quarters are too crowded to allow visitors). Someone's going to be burning a lot of DVDs.

What a strange reality those Microsoft folks are living in. The true market segment for Media Center PCs are lonely techno-hermits, 15 y.o. media pirates and some geeks who like toys. Nothing more, nothing less.

The week in review, so far

[jhines]

Beginning of the week, MS says "security costs $"

Mid week, MS says "No need for encryption" in our video recorder.

Why do I have this feeling that Friday's story will be how the movie companies are throwing money Microsoft's way, and that MS now thinks that encrypting the video isn't so bad after all.

Call me cynical, but this sounds like MS trying to get leverage on the movie industry, rather than helping the consumer.

Re:This can't be good.

[Jason Earl]

MS has just realized that they aren't a media company, and that people buying new computers to copy music, movies, and television to share with their friends is good for their business.

Microsoft will revive their encryption work when Hollywood gives Microsoft and Windows exclusive access their content. In other words Microsoft won't lift a finger to encrypt Hollywood's content until Hollywood promises to lock out all of Microsoft's competitors. Hollywood is opposing Microsoft in their bid to become the "one ring to rule them all," because they know that if they let Microsoft become the gatekeeper then Microsoft will rig the rig the deck so that Microsoft is the future keystone of broadcasting and distribution. And we all know that the toll-gate keeper makes all the money on a new road.

It's basically a choice between the lesser of two evils. Right now the folks pirating content seem like the lesser evil. Microsoft has enough clout so that they could force the market into using their DRM solution, but Hollywood doesn't trust Microsoft with that kind of power. Hollywood is hoping that they can get Congress to legislate DRM. That would allow them to get an industry standard instead of a proprietary Microsoft solution. Personally I don't see that happening, but Hollywood lives in a land of make believe.

Market Penetration and Consumer Fashion

[Anonamused Cow-herd]

Before everyone goes and finds an optimistic thought about MS, let's consider the motivation of this newfound benign giant. As we've seen before [slashdot.org], the set-top box has everything going against it:

1) Price (around $2k)
2) No real benefits over conventional PCs
3) Loss of conventional computer features.
4) Wacko copy protection


Obviously, a product like this is not going to sell well.

This news TEMPORARILY (they can always re-add it after market is successful) removes #4 from the list of problems. Therefore, one would assume that less problems for sales = higher sales.

Like most actions that seem altruistic, this can be passed away in the Evil Empire paradigm yet again.

Heil Gates.

Cheers,

Public pressure... bah humbug!

[Cervantes]

Lets face it, how much do non-geeks understand "digital encryption"? To answer that question, look at how many people have DRM still turned on in Media Player... heck, how many people know it turns itself back on with patches? How many people care? As much as we geeks would like to believe that the majority of the consumer base is techno-savy, the truth is they're still a bunch of AOL using, Compaq buying, Windows-only cow-sumers.

I wish it weren't so, but it is... so the question becomes, why did MS decide to do this? Answers:

- Creates more media coverage for the launch of a new XP version and HP machine. How much of the cNet article covered the issue, and how much talked about the new machine?

- Converts a few wanna-be geeks to the MS side (almost typed "dark side"... oopsie). They browse around, see the link, think MS is on their side, and decide that the MicroSerfs can't be all *that* bad.

- Offsets flashback from Palladium and Media Player DRM. "Hey, look, we aren't kowtowing, we fought back for YOU!". It also provides ammo for people who are going to go pro-MS when the next argument about DRM comes to town.

- Gives the geeks at 1 Microsoft Way (yes, there still are a few) some small sense of victory over the Corporate Drones (tm)

- Lets MS test the leash on the **AA. They do this, then wait and see. If the AA's come after them, then MS gets to "fight for the little guy" in a court battle they'd likely win, gets lots of publicity, and gets a boost to their image. If the AA's don't do anything, MS gets to claim a small victory, and maybe in 6 months they take another small step forward towards opt-in instead of opt-out on DRM in Windows.

Lets face it, the decision is mostly win-win for MS, and the great news is that Joe Average, who didn't give a rats ass about DRM for this new PC, has only heard "Microsoft bows to consumers, does what they want", not "Microsoft plans to restrict digital recordings more than analog". He reads the ad...err...article, thinks how nice this lil toy would be... *and*, MS tests out the strength of it's bond with HPaq. This little "change of heart" should show PDQ whether MS can count on HPaq to be a friend or foe... and given the new "WalMart PC" and it's butt-ugly linuxesque interface, MS needs to know who it's friends are.

Game, set, match, MS. Bill may have a bad haircut, but he doesn't hire idiots.

On a related note, have you seen the new WalMart PC's? If Linus had a grave, he'd be rolling in it!

Re:This can't be good.

[Per Wigren]

We're working on it! And it will be good! Just wait a few months until our upcoming features is in place! Development is going very fast right now!

They're holding out

[Jason Earl]

Microsoft simply knows which side their bread is buttered on. As the article states Sony already has a non-DRM version of the same gizmo, and Microsoft isn't a content company. People buying new computers to copy and share television shows is good for them.

Microsoft is waiting for Hollywood to become desperate, and then they will promise to secure digital media from one end to the other. Microsoft will promise to deliver Hollywood content directly from their ultra-secure servers in Redmond to the XBox2 on the customer's television. The agreements, of course, will be very exclusionary. Alternative formats, operating systems, or software will not be tolerated. If you want to see "Leave it to Beaver" then you will have to own an XBox2, and you will have to subscribe to MSN.

Microsoft figures that if they wait until Hollywood is desperate that there is some chance that they will turn their entire distribution and broadcast businesses over to Microsoft and MSN. Microsoft will become the new keystone of Entertainment, and we all know that the gate-keeper at the toll booth is the one that makes all the money on a new road.

Right now the media companies see Microsoft as a greater threat than the folks copying content. They know that if they give Microsoft control that they will all become subsidiaries of MSFT.

Re:They're holding out

[Jason Earl]

Does that mean they'll take away your tin-foil hat as well?

Tin foil is for amateurs, I use MindGuard!

In all seriousness, however, the problem is that the current systems, whether you are talking about cable, satellite, or worst of all broadcast television, can all be tapped quite easily. And once they can be tapped skipping commercials and sharing become ridiculously easy. Microsoft's solution to this problem is replacing these open standards and networks with their own proprietary closed system. It's attractive to Hollywood because it is the only system that is likely to actually have any chance of being accepted by consumers, and it would almost certainly be well beyond the average person's ability to "hack." Even better the DMCA should make people attempting to break the system into criminals.

Of course, this isn't going to happen. If Hollywood is stupid enough to put Microsoft in that sort of a position of power then they enjoying the raping that they would get once this system became widespread. Making Microsoft the cornerstone of your business is like putting a cannibal in charge of babysitting your children.

In other words, I don't think that this is going to work, but you can bet that Microsoft thinks it is going to work.

Re:They're holding out

[swb]

The RIAA has been rebuffing Microsoft's "secure digital media" initiatives for *years*. They know what Microsoft does to its business "partners" and it scares them, along with the wholly known stupidity of becoming reliant on one company that will supply the DRM system and then "manage it" to maximize their own business needs (more features to Windows, less to other players).

Microsoft is simply strong-arming them with this; the idea is to put Hollywood on notice that its Microsoft DRM or none at all. There is no *way* that BillG and STEVE! Ballmer would EVER allow Microsoft to become reliant on either an open standard they have to compete on and ESPECIALLY a proprietary system owned by someone else to do DRM for what many consider to be "the next killer app" for PCs.

They figure that if they make enough noise about unencrypted (copyable, sharable) video being available to consumers, Hollywood will run scared to MS begging to "partner" with MS on DRM, thus ensuring MS a place in their profit stream.

Any fantasies that this is about anything other than Microsoft locking itself into every consumer audio and video device made from now until 2030 they are fooling themselves.

Re:We can't put too much stock in this QWZX

[Gendou]

bsharitt wrote:
>> In the past MS has appeared to be moving towards
>> consumer rights, only to to take a couple step
>> back in their next move.

Anonymous Coward wrote:
> Name one time.

Sir, you are completely right. Microsoft has never even appeared to move towards consumer rights.

Re:We can't put too much stock in this QWZX

[Anonymous Coward]

I will.

Microsoft spoke out late last fall against the proposed SSSCA. Only to patent a DRM-enabled OS and then get into bed with the entertainment companies on content delivery.

One step forward. Two steps back.

Given this annoucement, look to see Microsoft either reintroduce this consumer-hostile measure in another guise, or backtrack on their position that DRM is best done through the market and not Congress.

Pulled or just disabled?

[SgtChaireBourne]

Did they actually pull the code or is this just one of the check boxes you will find checked for you after installing the next service pack?

Microsoft and the others know that the public won't go for DRM, so it has to be brought in gradually -- spread DRM software and hardware with DRM turned off, then when it's reached critical marketshare, flip the switch either on the servers or both the servers and workstations.