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

no no no

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:no no no

[smittyoneeach]

No, Vista is going to bring to a head the whole conflict between:
a) sheepish, complacent unwillingness to explore alternatives, and
b) childish demand for instant gratification.
My bet is on b), due to the entropy of the human soul. Once the hatred of the lock-in reaches bloom, the amount of cygwin, dual boot, live CD, and flat out migration will pick up steam.
It takes time to realize that there is a world beyond Redmond.

Re:no no no

[shadowmas]

and don't forget that with all these portable mp3/media players, you tube, etc people are starting to take for granted the ability to rip/share media files and do whatever they wish with them. if they come across a windows version which doesn't allow them to do that they WILL consider it to be a bug not a feature.

a few years ago Microsoft and media companies would probably have gotten away putting any damn DRM restriction they want without trouble but i think it's a tad bit too late to do that now. the cat's out of the bag...

Re:no no no

[nmb3000]

and don't forget that with all these portable mp3/media players, you tube, etc people are starting to take for granted the ability to rip/share media files and do whatever they wish with them. if they come across a windows version which doesn't allow them to do that they WILL consider it to be a bug not a feature.

This is one of the more insightful ideas behind why DRM will fail. Consumers (eventually) will refuse to accept that the audio from a disc they just bought at the store cannot be played on their portable player. They will not accept that the video they just bought cannot be viewed on their computer. The idea behind DRM makes sense: preventing casual copying and distribution of licensed media, but the problem is how to implement that without infringing on the consumer's basic rights as a licensee.

The problem is how these companies are trying to go about it. It seems like the current idea is a complete blackout of fair use, and as media with new DRM is distributed like this switching to Linux/OSS will not be a silver bullet. Until the DRM is broken (and these companies investing millions of dollars in it need to understand that it will be broken), the media will be even less available for OSS users than Windows users. However, once the formats are cracked open, users on both operating systems will be able to benefit and reclaim their fair use rights because of the work of people who truly define the word "hacker".

To borrow a quote, the more they tighten their grip, the more consumers will slip through their fingers--until a critical mass is formed and the entire thing falls apart. Even now, Apple is constantly playing catchup with people who are breaking the FairPlay DRM. Any new method of denying consumer rights will follow a similar path.

Re:no no no

[jZnat]

The idea behind DRM makes sense: preventing casual copying and distribution of licensed media, but the problem is how to implement that without infringing on the consumer's basic rights as a licensee.

The goal of DRM is to promote vendor lock-in and to make consumers re-buy all their media when the format updates, not to protect against casual copying.

Re:no no no

[Eivind]

This is one of the more insightful ideas behind why DRM will fail. Consumers (eventually) will refuse to accept that the audio from a disc they just bought at the store cannot be played on their portable player.

I think you're rigth, but I unfortunately also think that the pain has to increase by an order of magnitude or so before the average consumer will wake up and smell the coffee.

People haven't experienced (yet), that they require the permission of the seller to transfer 'their' digital music library to a new computer, and that that won't work if the company in question is out of business.

People haven't experienced (yet), that closing the analogue hole means banning general-purpose recording-devices.

People haven't yet seen their collection wither and die when the next "one true format" takes over and Apple/MS brings out new players and new OSes that don't support the old format. (If you're lucky, you *may* be able to convert your collection, but this too only works if Apple *wants* you to be able to do that)

Why would anyone have a problem with hardware DRM?

[Zero__Kelvin]

A TPM microchip embedded on the PC's motherboard stores unique system identifiers along with the BitLocker decryption keys. If a system is tampered with -- for example, if the hard drive is removed and placed in a different machine -- TPM detects the tampering and prevents the drive from being unencrypted.

Great idea! This way if my Motherboard dies, my data essentially dies with it. I'm always looking for ways to increase the impact fanout of my systems failure modes :-)

hmmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

I can pay an arm and a leg to be treated like a criminal or...
I can pay less and have freedom...

Tough decision...

my vote counts?

[Eto_Demerzel79]

"Consumers are the final arbiters because they can vote with their wallets," Usher added. "This is as it should be in any well-functioning market, and we believe the improvements in Windows Vista play to this strength."

Usher assumes that those doing the voting comprehend the problem. Also, with billion dollar corporations voting with their wallets, does my vote truly count? This is a case where other companies such as Apple and (name your fav Linux distro here) have an opportunity to distinguish themselves. I would expect most non-slashdotters to not even give a second thought to purchasing Vista with a new PC or for a business unless their are other truly equal (in performance, ease of use, etc...) choices.

Re:Alright!

[gad_zuki!]

>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.

Re:I so hope it doesn't "fail"

[Fulcrum of Evil]

This has nothing to do with copyright. DRM based solutions are not bound to the terms of copyright so much as whatever the producers decide to allow. That means that if we retroactively set copyright to 5 years for software, DRM is unaffected. Likewise, what motivation does the content provider have to help you when the DRM eats your legal stuff? They'd rather you buy it again.

Re:I so hope it doesn't "fail"

[PCM2]

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.

I fail to see the logic there. I've done a lot of thinking about copyright and I want it.

Copyright is very important. The GPL, among other things, depends on copyright.

Corporations lobbying the government to have grossly exaggerated term lengths for copyrights, on the other hand, is another matter entirely.

Here we are again, nothing has changed...

[TheNetAvenger]

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...

Re:Wait a minute..

[gfxguy]

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?

DRM not forced upon Microsoft

[massysett]

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.