Slashdot Mirror
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."'"
Content owners aren't trying to impose new formats, content providers are. Unless, of course, people are fooled into buying licenses to view content, rather than the content itself.
Half-way through first page and Vista's a non-starter for me. And I resent the word "tampering".
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
As long as the DRM is not intrusive, will consumers really care? Most people don't care if Microsoft checks to make sure their music file or movie is legal before it plays as long as they don't see it. As soon as the DRM causes false positives, erodes performance or become otherwise intrusive, people will go nuts. If done right, DRM could be here to stay. The problem is, none of the players have a clue how to do it right.
I can pay an arm and a leg to be treated like a criminal or...
I can pay less and have freedom...
Tough decision...
when people are actually forced to honour copyright they might actually start thinking about copyright, and that can only drive people not to want copyright.
How we know is more important than what we know.
>Finally, Joe Sixpack finally gets DRM! The sooner the better, I say!
Joe and Jane Sixpack have been getting DRM since the opening of the iTunes store and they love it. The idea that the common person will stand up against copyright controls is a little naive. Heck, some of them are looking forward to rebuying their movies and music in the new formats.
I think you've just answered your own question. Why bother with small fry?
Do you really think the Mac isn't going to embed DRM? If they want to be friendly with the media companies (which they have to be if they don't want their iTunes content to dry up), they will have to implement equivalent protections that MS does.
Further I would really like to see people stop acting like DRM is a new thing. It isn't. It's been around almost as long as digital computers have been available to the masses. Am I the only one who remembers the games that had a red filter and code card that you needed to use to start the game? Does no one remember floppy disks that had bad sectors that the program checked for so you couldn't copy them without hacking around the protection? The only difference now is it is getting harder to get around the protections but it's also getting a lot more transparent.
Personally, I would love to not have to deal with DRM. And if there is an alternative I won't. That is why I don't buy anything from iTMS (or any of their competitors). It's also why I probably won't upgrade to the new high-definition formats.
As for Vista, the only thing that MS is "responsible" for (IMO) is activation and WGA. Everything else is a framework they are providing for the media companies and which you don't have to use. As for the MS stuff, I have a really hard time complaining about activiation. Almost all pro-level commercial apps have some form of it. It would be really hard for me to hold MS in contempt for it and then go out and buy Photoshop. WGA on the other hand is stupid. If they've validated you with the activation that should be the end of it IMO. Although I wouldn't be too surprised to see other companies following suit. And to be honest I've seen worse. (Such as a certain application that when patched would remove the itself without warning if it thought you had pirated it.)
Wrong. It's supposed to be bloody hard to get the data off without my consent, not Microsoft's. I realize some of you have been so brainwashed to think those two things are the same, but they often aren't.
Except Linux could never have a monopoly, because it can be forked by a dissatisfied user at the slightest provocation.
So here we are again, and again the same ignorance and FUD is flying...
Out of all the DRM in Vista, nothing is required, nor even used by MS themselves with the exception of the WGA.
So rant on about the WGA, as I am not a fan of it either.
The rest of the stuff is known or existed in Windows for over 6 years and also exists in OSX.
1.) Music DRM - Already exists in older versions of Windows, it is only used if the online store requires it to be used. Apple iTunes is also DRM, but unlike MS, MS doesn't use the DRM technology in their OS to force you to buy the music from MS as Apple does. If people are POed at DRM, why does Apple get a free pass, when they not only implement the DRM technology but are also the ones requiring it for their own profit in the music industry?
2) HD DRM - Again this is something that has been known for a long time, and if the content provider turns on DRM, I don't care what OS you are using, you will either be subjected to DRM, low quality Video, or not able to play it at all. Vista at least allows compliant HD systems the ability to play this crap, just as the HD players already on the market ALSO HAVE IMPLEMENTED! So we can complain about MS, but they did nothing more than make it so Vista can play HD DRM content, they did NOT restrict anything whatsoever. The finger needs to be pointed at any content providers that use DRM. The only way DRM HD content is going to play on any OS other than Vista is in a low quality analog mode, period. (Unless there is a quite an elaborate hack on the horizon, that by passes several Hardware layers of encryption.) Also, since Intel is the author of the HD DRM crap, should we be angry at them along with the content providers? To follow logic, to be mad at MS for letting Vista play DRM HD Content, then we also should be mad at Sony and Toshiba that made HD and Blu HDDVD players which ALSO SHIP with DRM locking mechanisms, as ALL CONSUMERS players have this crap Intel stuff installed.
3) TPC - Well, everyone though MS was using the (again Intel) TPC for applications, content and 100s of other FUD stories... As Vista ships, the ONLY place TPC is used, is for a BitLocker Drive, and it is only used to store the drive's encryption. However, TPC isn't even required for bitlocker, as long as your computer can boot to a USB drive, MS can store the encryption key needed on the USB Dongle and not need TPC even for bitlocker whatsoever. So instead of TPC being used to lock people out of applications or anything else as the rumor mills were wanting people to believe, Vista only uses it to store encryption information for a volume level encryption technology.
4) WGA - Yep it sucks that MS is using this crap. I know why they are doing it, but I don't fully agree. I understand the mass OEM level copying of the late 90s that prompted the first activation generation with WindowsXP, and sure it hurt both consumers and MS. However by Microsoft using this system, it makes users feel like MS is trying to control them, when it is more the duplication pirate companies out there that this gives the axe to. Also if the OEM or consumers are legit, this doesn't hurt them, especially as MS has backed down on all the EULA crap that had surfaced last month. If you own a real copy you can pretty much do what you want with it.
I won't defend WGA though, MS should know better that the pirates will still get past whatever they need to, and this only annoys the end users, even though I know good people at MS that think they are protecting users with the WGA... Even if they are misguided.
So with another round of the big Vista DRM Scare, the only DRM MS is using is the WGA, which is also in WindowsXP. The rest of the DRM in Vista has always been there, exists in other Oses like OSX and is up to the content providers to screw over customers with or not, MS is nothing more than the company that makes the player to use the Toshiba/Sony analogy...
Geek: Activation! Wah!
Everyone else: Click. Click. Done.
Geek: DRM! Wah!
Everyone else: Insert HD-DVD Movie. Play HD-DVD Movie. Done.
When HD-DVD and Blu-Ray drives become available for the Mac or OEM Linux, (think Linspire systems sold through Walmart or Target) they will enforce the same DRM rules as Windows, the XBox or the PS3. There is no side-grade.
The author and MS says DRM was forced on MS Vista by the content owners/providers. But that's clearly not the case. XP manages not to have this level of protection and there appears to be plenty of content available for the Windows platform.
I seem to recall that MS pitched their DRM schemes to content owners and providers to convince them that Windows was the only good platform for secure content and essentially achieve lock-in at the content provider level.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter, but for Microsoft to say "Oh poor us, we didn't want to provide DRM, but we had to!" seems disingenuous at best.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
If you can write a game to run under Windows w/ DirectX 10 - you can provide a compatibility layer for it through Wine - the only question will be the performance.
Same thing was about DVD and their CSS protection. Do you recall what have happened to them in Linux?
Joe and Jane Sixpack have been getting DRM since the opening of the iTunes store and they love it.
For starters, I don't know that I accept that statement at face value. But even more salient to the discussion at hand, FairPlay is not obtrusive or cumbersome to the typical user; however, much of the DRM associated with nascent digital media formats and Vista is obtrusive and cumbersome for almost all users. That's a big difference - perhaps enough of a one to actually make a difference in how Mr. and Mrs. Sixpack react.
As a side note, I don't know who the Sixpacks are, but I'm amazed at the amount of technology that they possess and use in there everyday lives, yet still have such a poor grasp and understanding of the issues.
my pet machine
It surprises you that a sci-fi Geek with a plasma TV would be willing to pay Amazon.com $20 for Forbidden Planet in pristine HD digital restoration?
Or, ya know, they replace CeeDees with a new DRM encrusted format and don't sell any new music without it. Didn't you get the memo?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Most people don't care, most people don't want a crack for it. Despite the slashdot demographic, all those business users with site licenses aren't going to care. Most people with legal copies of Vista simply aren't going to care, especially people who use it as a media center. Most slashdotters already don't use an MS based media system.
And I'm certainly not going to care because I have no intention of using Windows Vista anyway. Two computers in my house have Windows 2000, two (the ones I use) are dual boot and haven't booted to Windows in months. The laptop is the only one with XP and I don't care. The only reason I'll ever own a copy of Vista is if I buy a system that comes with it, and I won't care.
So you're going to have a majority of people at one extreme who don't care because they don't even realize they're getting screwed, you're going to have a small minority at the other extreme who don't care because they don't use Windows anyway, and then you're going to have a small minority in between... a vocal minority that screams bloody murder about it. But when MS sees 10k or even 100k people whining and complaining, they'll compare that with their 10 million or 20 million or 300 million licenses sold and not give a flying [expletive].
I think you guys overestimate the people who care about this sort of thing. It's really sad that they don't, but the simple fact is that they don't.
Here's an example: I know of a lot of people who were screwed when they bought music at iTMS and didn't own an iPod, they owned an MP3 player. They could only listen to the music on their computer or burn a CD. How many Joe users know they can then rip the CD using completely free software? Yes, the tech saavy people I work with, and students perhaps. My parents don't know how to do this. Neither does my sister or even her kids. The secretaries and pointy headed bosses at work don't know or care. So they get annoyed, but all that happens is they figure out what format their player plays and buy that. Problem solved, in their minds. Why on earth would they need to "set it free" when their player will play it? Why waste time and resources taking that extra step?
Stupid sexy Flanders.
DRM in the form imagined by Microsoft/Intel/Sun/IBM/AMD (and the rest of the Trusted Computing mafia) is thoroughly Orwellian in nature.
I agree. With every new generation we see the OS adding another layer between the user and his computer. Remember when we had to fiddle around with interrupts, extended and expanded memory, protected mode and stuff to get things done? Then came Win32 - and now we didn't fool around with nuts and bolts of the OS anymore - we had to learn the "Windows API" and _usually_ this API did the work for us. Then more levels get added on - COM objects, and MFC. Direct X. In some respects it has made programming a lot easier. But now we don't deal directly with our machines - Microsoft has officially set itself up as the middle-man.
I personally envision that the next logical step will be to prevent regular folks from programming altogether. I mean, if you're interested in programming why you must be trying to "hack" your system, or surely you're trying to write a virus, a bot, or a worm. Leave the programming to the "professionals", send us your data, and we'll manipulate it for you and send you the results. And charge you every time. I don't think I'll be supporting this upgrade path.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
many of the DRM technologies were forced upon Vista by the entertainment industry,
Absolutely not. There is no way that the entertainment industry is dictating terms to a company with 90% of the market for desktop operating systems. What is this line supposed to do, make me say "oh boo hoo, poor Microsoft, being dictated to by the entertainment industry"? Ridiculous.
MS wants DRM. MS likes DRM. If content can only be played on Windows, that's another reason to buy Windows and not Mac or Linux. MS is reaping license fees on many of its DRM schemes--Yahoo is not using MS DRM for free when it locks up its music downloads. MS and the entertainment industry are in a symbiotic relationship: DRM gives them both a way to make more money and to control their respective markets.
Anyone who things DRM has been "forced" on MS is falling for MS propoganda.
Penny - plain text accounting
You apparently don't understand what is going on here. Suppose you use PGP to have e-mails sent to you encrypted. Then for some reason you lose your private key (say, your computer crashes and you didn't have a backup). Now you can't read any of the e-mails that are sent to you. OMG PGP has taken over your e-mails without your consent!?!?!??!!>!??! No, you chose to use a technology to have e-mails encrypted, and you lost the key to the data. The entire intent of the method was to prevent someone without the key from having access to the data. If you lose the key, you shouldn't expect to have access to the data, or if you do, you should expect others that don't have they key to have access to the data as well. The same goes for bitlocker. You have to weigh the risk of your motherboard breaking and you losing all your data against the risk of the data falling into the wrong hands before you decide to encrypt it. Don't cry about Microsoft because the technology is doing exactly what it is supposed to do -- prevent someone without the key from having access to the data.
Your PGP example is flawed. In the PGP example, I at least *had* the key. I had responsibility to keep the key safe. That was my responsibility if I lost it; mine to lose.
But my argument against media DRM is that it has a tendency to put a cryptographic scheme to which I do *not* have the key, on my creative works.
Further, such schemes are often not so much a measure to "protect" artists or even the corporations that distribute their work, but are more an effort to maintain artificially high barriers to entry into the world of audio and video production.
I object very strongly when I am asked to use a recording format that places a cryptographic lock on *my* music -- that is, music that I composed, arranged, and performed, to which *I* hold all copyrights and for which I alone decide if and how its reproduction shall be limited.
So when Sony or Steinberg or Digi decides to swing their fist, protecting their copyrights or the copyrights of the artists they represent, that's fine. But they occasionally hit my nose, by abridging *my* copyright, or at least, expecting me to happily enter into a relationship whereby they will abridge my copyright, and it's no deal, no way, ever.
Few people seem to understand my argument. But mass acceptance of DRM schemes is a *very* *bad* thing for the rights of individual artists -- particularly those who wish to reserve all rights to their work while also not placing artificial constraints on distribution. To the corporate production machine, those two ideas are completely incompatable. It's hard for lots of people to comprehend that a person might want to hold copyrights but also broadcast his music or video or writings as far and as wide as possible (regardless of compensation). Those two goals are not at all incompatable, and are in fact, the basis for the existence of copyright law in the first place. The right to distribute your material is the main thing. Distributing for compensation is just a special case.
But the fact that rights are abridged for individuals is lost in the noise of "piracy."
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Yep, Windows users will take it ... because they are told to take it by MS. They will like it, too, no matter how bad it is ... because they will be told to like it. Sheep/slaves ... take your pick. I find it impossible to care. If they are willing to walk over a cliff because they are told to ... that's their business, and not mine.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
Well, I diagree. I think Sony has flopped in the digital music market for about 15 years now because again and again they keep releasing restricted devices and formats that just don't do what you would expect, starting with DAT, on through Mini Disc, ATRAC, and continuing to this day. Again and again they try, again and again the market takes a whiff and heads for the door in droves.
..What choice consumers have? You buy a new PC, you will get vista. You want to play a (PC) game in 2008, you need vista.
So since there's no real alternative as you can't (legally) even transfer the OEM copy of XP you got with your old PC into the new PC, you're stuck with Vista, no matter how it is.
What I find mildly amusing on Slashdot are all these young and idealistic IT "professionals"
Thanks for assuming who I am...but did you notice your UID is over 850k after mine?
I've been in the industry (and reading Slashdot) a hell of a lot longer than you, fella.
So current DRM schemes run into some issues with Vista. Big deal.
So tell me - at what point does it get to be too much fucking trouble - and how much money will that strategy ultimately make for the studios?
The **AA thinks that DRM will save them - and it could, if handled right - but Microsoft's vision is one of superrestrictions and flashy Zune-ish crap.
Given how buggy and restrictive Microsoft's software is for the money, you think the consumer is going to buy into that vision and experience over the long term (10-20 years)?
Yes, but how long until they will also start charging to make copies of anything? Say you want to transfer those pictures you took on your camera to your computer. I'm betting after a while camera companies and MS will get in bed so they can charge you for that. They'll probably call it a developing fee or something.
They already fooled my mother into thinking she has to buy "developing" packs to print out pictures she takes, that is the only thing she understands. They cost about the same as taking it to a photo place to develop. I try to tell her she can copy them to her computer, but well...she doesn't get it.
Of course, photographers and those who understand will search for nonDRM cameras, but I think plenty of (probably older) people will be fooled.
Will probably be the same for many other things. It will probably have to be slipped in slowly, but I think they will at least try it. I suppose the good side is it'll push more people away from proprietary crap and into more open standards. Let's just hope it won't be too late.
ian