Are New DRM Technologies Setting Vista Up For Failure?

PetManimal writes "Computerworld has picked apart the way Vista handles DRM in terms of hardware and software restrictions. Trusted Platform Module, Output Protection Management, Protected Video Path and various Windows Media software components are designed to 'protect' copyrighted content against security breaches and unauthorized use. The article notes that many of the DRM technologies were forced upon Vista by the entertainment industry, but that may not garner Microsoft or Hollywood any sympathy with consumers: 'Matt Rosoff, lead analyst at research firm Directions On Microsoft, asserts that this process does not bode well for new content formats such as Blu-ray and HD-DVD, neither of which are likely to survive their association with DRM technology. "I could not be more skeptical about the viability of the DRM included with Vista, from either a technical or a business standpoint," Rosoff stated. "It's so consumer-unfriendly that I think it's bound to fail — and when it fails, it will sink whatever new formats content owners are trying to impose."'"

Comments

Short answer: No

[Sycraft-fu]

Longer answer: No, because Vista doesn't mandate the DRM. You can use all your un-DRM'd media just fine in Vista. You can make new un-DRM'd media in Vista. You can even make it in new formats. Vista doesn't care. So while a DRM'd up format might fail, it won't hurt Vista at all because Vista doesn't mandate you use DRM, just provides it for you to use. Also, it's not like the DRM'd content will magically work un-DRM'd on older OSes. You'll have to have all the DRM support to use it.

So either way it works for Vista. If the DRM fails, oh well, some wasted development money I guess but the OS works as it always has. If it succeds, just another reason for people to upgrade to Vista.

Not the DRM - The Licensing Will

[ironwill96]

I work for a University and we recently went to a conference where Microsoft presented some of their new licensing schemes for Vista. We were quite perturbed to say the least. For one, they don't want us to ever use the "Ultimate" version. Here's how the conversation goes with the Microsoft rep:

Microsoft Rep: "So as you can see, Windows Vista Ultimate's CD media costs will be very cheap and each copy will have its own CD key for use in activation."
Us: "So umm..is there volume licensing for the Ultimate version?"
Microsoft Rep: "No, but the CD Media is very cheap!"
Us: "So, you don't want us to use the Ultimate version then?"
Microsoft Rep: "No, you can still use it, you just need to buy an individual CD with an individual key for use with individual product activation!"
Us: "So, basically, you don't want us to use the Ultimate edition then, got it."

Not only are they nuking volume licensing for the highest level products, they are also going to require product activation even with volume licensing! In Windows XP, we have a volume-license key that is embedded in the Image during SysPrep and that key does NOT require activation. Activation is annoying when you are imaging thousands of machines every year. No word yet on whether the volume license activation will be requiring an individual key for every copy of Vista you install (if they even let us make an image of it at all!).

Re:Wait a minute..

[alshithead]

Respectfully, you may be looking at things a little too shaded by your experience. I have worked for only three different companies in the last 20 years so I may also be in the same position but my experience is different. I just don't see broad disdain for systems other than Windows.

I have worked for a very large, high volume (1500+ stores) retail chain, an international, premier law firm, and one of the largest US based banks. All three of them used non-Windows platforms for very significant parts of their IT infrastructure. From all three here is the list of the ones I can think of quickly: AIX, Solaris, AS400, Xenix, HP Unix, Linux, Novell, Windows of course, and I'm sure I'm missing some. All three used Windows in some capacity be it workstation, server, or both, but critical chunks of their infrastructure were non-Windows. The law firm had it's entire financial and billing system on HP Unix but otherwise employed Windows workstations and mostly Windows servers for all other functions. The retail chain (back in the day at this point) had a couple of Novell servers and some Windows workstations but most folks used dumb terminals to a mainframe. Their point of sale terminals in the stores were Xenix and then migrated to a Linux. The bank's systems spanned the spectrum with Windows only being a majority on the workstation end.

I think that most larger organizations have a distinct need to be more than just a Windows shop. Windows can't do it all...and there are a lot of people out there who know that.