Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection

Posted by Zonk on from the content-was-never-so-protected dept.

David Gerard writes "Security researcher Peter Gutmann has released A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection, a detailed explanation of just what the protected-content paths in Windows Vista mean to you the consumer: increased hardware cost and even less OS robustness. 'This document analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry ... The Vista Content Protection specification could very well constitute the longest suicide note in history.'"

1 of 294 comments (clear)

  1. Higher Requirements for New Media by SupermanX · · Score: 0, Troll

    The article makes the claim that there are higher requirements for new media. They then state that if we do not meet these requirements, that we are stuck with low quality content... Why is this a problem? To play blue ray you have to have a blue ray player. To play DRM protected media you have to have authorized drivers. Yes DRM sucks, but who honestly thinks that it is unreasonable to require new hardware and new drivers for new technology. Don't have a HD card? cant play HD movies. Vista isn't the evil (or even bad choice) here. The problem is that the newest (and supposedly best) media is coming with DRM requirements. If Vista doesn't support those requirements, then it cant access the media. Giving it the ability to meet a specification isn't bad... it is good. You may not like the specification, but you have the option to use it or not. If Vista didn't support it, you wouldn't have that option at all. So, again, where is the problem here?