Slashdot Mirror
Vista Security The 'Longest Suicide Note in History'?
rar42 writes "The Inquirer is reporting on an analysis of Vista by Peter Gutmann — a medical imaging specialist. This isn't the usual anti-Microsoft story — just a professional looking at what is going to happen to his computer if it is upgraded to Microsoft Vista. From the article: 'Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to provide content protection for so-called "premium content", typically HD data from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources. Providing this protection incurs considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical support overhead, and hardware and software cost,' says Gutmann."
From TFA:
At first, I shared some cognitive dissonance with Gutman; China, however, is governed by Chinese and for Chinese: they're allowed to act in their own best interests.
The U.S., on the other hand, is beholden to parasites and corporations; and compelled into an unnecessary decline.
You're not supposed to use a consumer grade OS for mission critical apps anyway. So if you went with a vendor that builds its apps on such an OS, then you are at fault.
Same story at http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/22/172 7245
For the kinds of purposes I'm interested in (research, science) this will make workers question the priorities of the operating system they are using. Is the priority to have maximum flexibility, performance, compatibility and extensibility (*nix) or to have maximum convenience for consumers (Windows).
Without a doubt, Windows is still the most convenient platform for consumers. But the priority behind the design is not purely performance and flexibility, but protecting content and other commercial interests.
We sure know the priority isn't security either
Nobody ever asked for Vista. Nobody wants it. I'm tired of MS trying to ram it down our throats.
Did you know DirectX 10 will only be released under Vista? Even if you have the latest and greatest G-card and a fast system, sorry, if you run XP you'll be stuck with DirectX 9. There's no technical reason for this. It's just that MS wants you to 'retrograde' to Vista.
How about someone do a web site reselling old XP licenses? eBay refused to do this because MS asked them not too. How about someone will some guts and enterpreneurship takes a go at this. Could be a huge market for XP resales especially to businesses?
As for games developers, do what I do: Switch to OpenGL next release.
Microsoft was legally forced to remove version numbers from Windows as the software they ship was technically no longer improved.
``This isn't the usual anti-Microsoft story just a professional looking at what is going to happen to his computer if it is upgraded to Microsoft Vista.''
Doesn't any professional investigation of Vista inevitably end up being an anti-Microsoft story?
(Just kidding. I actually think Microsoft put a lot of good things in Vista - although I'm not convinced it's a good product, and I'm definitely not dying to use it)
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Here's a link to the actual paper referenced in the article.
I would post the entire paper, but it's too large. Here are some notable excerpts:
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Peter is a security guy. He's written widely used crypto software. He is not a medical imaging specialist. Where did /. get the idea that he's a medical imaging specialist???
This article was poorly researched FUD the first time it appeared on /. last week. Editors if your gonna dupe something, At least make it something worth reading.
Well it's becoming more evident everyday that many corporations, politicians and media sorts see people in markets as not much more that cultured bacteria in a dish. They give you a marginal amount of satisfaction and then stick you in the eye hoping in the end you will be just one more percent more satisfied than less and so they keep you in orbit that way while they move on to the next triangulation.
I bought a highly rated Dell 2007WFP last month and it turned out Dell was now making that model with a whole new panel without telling anyone. A 8 bit S-IPS was replaced with a junky 6 Bit S-PVA. It's a very different monitor now. Dell pretty much shows it has contempt for customers and Microsoft is the same. You get a few nice new features (some not ripped off from Apple) and then you get spanked and are told its for your own good (or somebody's).
I only cut Microsoft some slack because other parasites try to bleed Microsoft non-stop. When all the big players get done wrestling each other the little people not trampled yet get the chance to overpay for some compromised item that's more sizzle than steak. Vista will be ok - good enough to use. But it will kcik you in the balls all the time just to remind you that you are an extension of your computer (and those that run it) and not vice versa.
Now I will try to watch the game on television. They still show some of the action in between endless commercials that scream at you.
PS: Linux users are breaking the LAW every time they watch a DVD using their OS.
Bullshit. I've burned quite a few movies to DVD from archive.org and I doubt any of them violate even the US's draconian laws.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
fta: Disclaimer
:)
Any opinions expressed on this page are not in fact mine but were forced on me at gunpoint by the University of Auckland.
He a shill!
Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
>PS: Linux users are breaking the LAW every time they watch a DVD using their OS.
Untrue.
Distributors of some types of DVD decoding software may be doing so in violation of civil statutes in certain jurisdictions, but I must ask you to cite the specific prohibition you claimed in your PS:. Chapter and verse of the applicable law, please, don't waste our time with "DMCA". I know all about the DMCA, the DVD/CCA/CSS issues, etc.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
Which is also the reason why I switched from windows 2000 to Fluxbox on Ubuntu as soon as I could. I can watch video files on my VIA EPIA without having to close the X11VNC session I use to control it. With Windows I had to close VNC because the framerate got too low.
A lightweight DE on *BSD and GNU/Linux makes a real difference.
home
The record and film industry do not want new technologies to be available to the public. They will fight bitterly until the last, until the new medium is forced on them. And then they will make money on it. Think of home video. The film industry brought the VCR manufacturers all the way to the Supreme Court until they lost. Now the film industry makes significantly more money in home video sales than in the theatres. Technology must be imposed non-consentually on the content providers. The manufacturers need to release their products regardless of the complaints of the content providers.
I don't know why Microsoft is bending over for the media companies. They should just publically state that any mandated copy protection will hurt the ability of corporations to develop their own proprietary software. I'm sure there is at least a dozen companies which will gladly provide written statements about how the copy protection hurts their business. Microsoft then gives the media companies the middle finger. Pirates rape the media companies in innovative ways by releasing the content in manners not approved by the owners. The media companies are forced to create new media delivery methods to match consumer demands. This increases their revenues which were stagnant because of media executives who couldn't innovate their way out of a paper bag. The consumer benefits from new options in the market. Everyone benefits from the rape.
I don't believe piracy for profit should be legal. However, I don't believe that non-profit piracy is that bad. Many people would never purchase the movie or television show. Many people later purchase the legal version of the pirated product. For example, let's say a Slashdot reader named Jim missed out on the first 8 episodes of Heroes. He had heard it was a really good show, but didn't want to watch number nine first. Let's say that Jim downloaded the episodes in non-approved manner and watched them. Now Jim is a loyal Heroes watcher. Or let's say that Jim downloads technical books, finds which ones he likes and then purchases them online. Does Jim contribute to the media companies bottom line or does he hurt the media companies bottom line?
Could someone please like, read....something before they post a summary? I found no indication that Gutmann is a medical imaging specialist from his web page or report. He's a computer scientist who specializes in compression and encryption, which actually makes him a little bit qualified to perform a professional review of the new operating system.
The only thing remotely medicine related here is a quote from 'Brad Steffler MD.', a surgeon who claims that Microsoft's restrictive DRM methodologies make it more difficult for him to do his job.
I suppose you have not bought a PS1 2 or 3 then?
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
Many industrial and medical applications run on Windows. You forget that Windows NT was advertised as a high-security C3 operating system. Many applications were ported on this advertising. Some of the lock-down permissions in Windows NT were pretty draconian, and worked really well.
With Windows Vista, Microsoft appears to be completely abandoning any pretense of high-reliability.
Many industrial and medical applications have fairly high reliability requirements. Using commodity software and hardware has some cost and reliability advantages. It is easy to source replacement parts, and implement hardware redundancy. Being able to easily obtain replacement hardware is a big advantage if downtime costs are large.
The problem is that Microsoft appears to have abandoned the high-reliability sector. Windows XP has a continuous stream of rolling updates for both XP and the Anti-Virus packages. The result is that your high-reliability application can stop working for no apparent reason. From all indications, Windows Vista will make this worse.
Recently, I have been looking harder and harder at Linux. Linux offers a much more stable platform, and I can customize the installation to make it much more difficult to corrupt. The issue is that such a high software investment has been placed in specialized Windows solutions, that it is difficult to port everything to another operating system overnight.
Sounds like a good case for a anti-trust trial in europe :-)
to see these old chestnuts dragged out with every new version of Windows. There isn't a single new complaint since Windows95. Most of it unqualified paranoid ranting. Keep notes and you can be amused when all this starts again with Windows Vienna!
Isn't it obvious ? Microsoft markets their OS to the movie/music companies as being the only system secure enough for them to release their content in. In turn, the movie/music companies only release their content to play back under Windows. A nice little win-win situation all round (except for the poor consumer, who loses twice...)
...but from the PR standpoint, it's a WIN. I'm all for discouraging Windows use, but I'm also one for personal
choice. And if it means someone has to give people crutches in the short-term to score points in the long run
so be it.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
You're kidding, right?
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal
...and sudenly Linux is the new gamers OS.
Rethinking email
MS are inserting themselves in the stream because they want to be the pimp of all media. they will shutout non-microsoft obedient hardware vendors as well as stopping use of VMs, alternative OSs and legacy multimedia I/O such as spdif and composite video
:-(...
Watch for iPod Vista compatibility 'problems' to start surfacing for the benefit of Zune. The other big thing this DRM play will also try to do is to reintroduce protected CDs or to make it more difficult to play/rip unencumbered CDs.
MS want the cartel-on-cartel action that the music and video industries also want so they can dominate the mOS/HW market the media cartels want to force the users to go the leased-conent model and eliminate private music ownership -it would almost be socialistic -in the Kremlin sort of way, but not like true Socialism
Plus they need more leverage against iTunes/iPod
-I'm just sayin'
If you're watching BBC programmes in the UK then there is no such legal circumvention. The law is very comprehensive in that area and has covered computer viewing for years.
Look at linux... its not like we have Linux 3.0 and Linux 4.0 where nothing old works.
Its still linux. 8 year old stuff still compiles mostly, its fluid.
If windows was so great, it would stay at one version XP forever, with unlimited updates forever, SP4 SP21. etc...
Just because they are forced by marketing to make a new version is admiting its core is crap and needs a rewrite.
They could just as easily update/replace portions of XP gradually, six monthly. And make sure each other component isnt
too tied to others. ie WMP shouldnt need IE7 or something else... it should be detect and use if available.
This whole idea of , lets stop current dev and all new dev is placed into a new 'version' edition is total marketing crap, and
old school stuff of the 80s. Modern complex systems should never have a major rebuild, its always small step updates, like real
biological evolution.
OSX is basically the same, but again its articially versionized because of just new components added, and the silly side effects like
newly compiled made software not working on old OSX's even if they use no new features, thats my biggest pet pieve of OSX. Sometimes
its only the result of the installer package, not the code it self which would work fine. If X library is less than version Y, then dont use
those features.
Btw does apple make the old OS10.1 and 10.2 upgrades from 10.0 FREE NOW? what about any one left in 10.2 land, do they get a free 10.3 upgrade
once 10.4 is widely installed? Having too many versions installed out there should be a worry for them, they should allow all 10.3 machines to upgrade
for free. It would surely be cheaper to have no support for pre 10.3 if you provide free upgrades.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Except Microsoft basically owns the OS market, and they can therefore dictate their own terms, much like Apple and the iTunes store in the portable music sector.
What are the media companies going to do, not release media that will play on Windows operating systems if Microsoft doesn't implement their DRM? Hell no. So again, why is Microsoft bending to their demands?
What rant? I must've missed it.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/defa ult.aspx
this is a microsoft hosted page that you can pull up any EULA you want (MS products only of course)
Microsoft requires the right to DISABLE YOUR COMPUTER if it fails a validation check (WGA BOFH style anyone?)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Let's say that Jim downloaded the episodes in non-approved manner and watched them. This one is totally off base. If you can download the content, why purchase it? I certainly wouldn't
If you're watching BBC programmes in the UK then there is no such legal circumvention. The law is very comprehensive in that area and has covered computer viewing for years.
You're wrong. The TV licence covers the receiving and recording of broadcasts as they are being broadcast. I've got the documentation on my lap right now. The website clarifies this here. This does not cover the shows that are available for viewing on BBC sites such as BBC Two's Watch Now. (IANAL though)I don't much care for the TV licence.
Have you heard about a program called LinDVD (from the makers of WinDVD)? Linspire and mandriva 2007 (PP) both have copies.
(oh and DeCSS is in fact legal in a few countries IANAL IIRC)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
A lot of assertions about what will happen, but specific examples and evidence are few and far between. Without harder facts that demonstrate the effects he claims, the author's claims are no more believable as those of "Intelligent Design".
Umm, excuse me for being a buttinsky.. but I beleive second quote is in fact FROM INQ reader BRAD STEFFLER MD!!! Who may, in fact start off a quote with "As a physician who uses PCs for image review before I perform surgery.."
It seems some Slashdot "readers" also have the wrong title..
So many injustices..so little time..
Why does a Medical Imaging Specialist look into security of Windows Vista ? That is a complete oxymoron. All computer science personnel cannot be tarred with the same brush. This is the problem of most forum based discussions anybody can post stuff and it gets enough hype if its slashdotted.
At one time Enron was huge, too, but their arrogance and questionable antics lead to their downfall and execs beinc charged and convicted.. The same can happen to MS and their goon hierachy as well.
If there's the politcal will to carry about another extrememely expensive round of litigaton, perhaps. I don't see that happening in the next decade, personally.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Oh, I dunno, maybe they'll install their own DRM that breaks your computer?
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
I just bought a PC, "Vista Ready". I get to run XP Media edition, seems to rip MP3s quite nicely. So when Vista arrives I will shelf it for 2 years waiting until at least one major service pack, security and stability to be tested by others. By this time lets hope the DRM is disabled. If not, there is a reason why I use only MP2/3/4 formats.... it moves to Linux nicely.
touché Mr. AC, touché...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
They dictate the terms they do, because it helps them maintain their monopoly position. I can think of 5 benefits for Microsoft off the top of my head:
1) Locks users into their proprietary formats, and locks other operating systems/competitors out.
2) Allows Microsoft to charge a fee for encoding and decoding to/from those formats.
3) By being the only solution mandated by the RIAA/MPAA, causes those groups to support Microsoft as the only acceptable software solution.
4) Allows Microsoft and others to spread FUD about Linux being a system used by "pirates" and "hackers" (because it doesn't support DRM)
5) Makes Microsoft's offerings seem more attractive, since only they offer access to "premium" content
And by the way:
Note that exactly the same situation applies to Apple, except that having a smaller market, they have to at least appear to be more consumer friendly. Therefore the RIAA, MPAA also have a slight leverage, by choosing to support Apple or Microsoft more (see iTunes vs Zune for example).
I currently have a Chinese-made upconverting DVD player. Chinese made because the US and Japanese manufacturers have knuckled under to the demands of the entertainment industry that no DVD player will output HD content over component video cables. (Now think for a moment just how mind-numbingly stupid this restriction is. Upconverting DVD players don't actually output video in true HD, because the movie isn't on the DVD in HD in the first place, and no process can add more information that was there to begin with. All an upconverting DVD player does is interpolate. An upconverted signal is the absolute last thing that any pirate could want, because it massively increases the amount of data required to copy the signal, without adding any information. So the entertainment industry, out of sheer ignorance has added a completely useless restriction that imposes considerable inconvenience on the consumer. Many older HD TV's only have component inputs, and even newer ones typically have only one HDMI or DVI input. And HDMI/DVI switchboxes are much more expensive than component ones. So consumers end up switching cables, shelling out extra money for switchboxes--or doing what I did, and buying a Chinese DVD player that is oriented toward the consumer instead of sucking up to the content industry.
If your interpretation were correct, then everyone who used *any* DVD player of any kind, would commit the identical offense.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I find it odd that the main thing that inspired this is not linked from the Slashdot summary. Truly a scathing article.
It makes Vista sound like a disaster. All this really shows how far MS will go to satisfy the RIAA/MPAA crowd's insanity. They are truly mad.
No one will like this. Not hardware vendors, not consumers, not anyone. Surely they're not going through with this?
Getting MS software for free (or close to it) under these type of licenses is the only time that the software is worth it.
This is the Constitution.This is the Constitution under the Bush administration. Any questions?
I don't know why Microsoft is bending over for the media companies.
Money.
rd
What are the media companies going to do, not release media that will play on Windows operating systems if Microsoft doesn't implement their DRM? Hell no. So again, why is Microsoft bending to their demands?
Because the money for enforcing it is double dipping.
rd
A few years back, Sony tried to release a new format that was incompatible with computers-- SACD. Promising surround sound, and resolution superior to that of a Compact Disc, the format competed with DVD-Audio, which was playable on PCs. Neither proved to be very popular-- consumers preferred to listen to sub-CD resolution, stereo-only tracks.
I don't really think that DVD-Audio's PC compatibility helped it that much. In 1997, when DVD-Video was first released, the best video displays were to be found on PCs. But, for the most part, PC audio is horrible, and a lister needs a good system to distinguish DVD-AUdio from CD (or, in the case of surround, dts) anyway.
It's been my impression that Microsoft has been actively courting the media companies. They actively promote HD-DVD. Windows DRM is heavily promoted. Microsoft has its Zune, and some sort of Zune music store. It's not about begrudgingly crippling their operating system to satisfy the MPAA's demands. It's about turning a moribund operating system into an exciting new profit center-- extending the monopoly into new markets.
Who are the idiot programmers designing this important software for 'home use' / 'general purpose' operating systems? Why aren't things like this embedded systems, or a custom special use OS, that is designed fully around a stability model. You don't see go-karts used as ambulances.
It's this same story over and over. People now giving out that Vista is not really offering anything new, and isn't a worthwhile, and Microsoft are trying to force it down our necks. Of course they are, how many of you own a Gillete Fusion razor, this is the same thing, it's companies fluffing up a product so they can sell it to you again. You can't whine at a company to stop making money this way, it's a pretty guaranteed way to make profits, and they won't change because you give out.
I'm Jim -- except that's not my name :P -- exactly. I started smoking the Heroes crack about episode 8 or so, and NEVER would have started watching it at episode 9, without having snagged it off BT. In the meantime, I've sold at least a dozen other people on the series. Will I buy the season when it comes out on DVD? Hellya. Did "piracy" cost NBC money in my case? Hmm.....
What does it mean to wake out of a dream
and be wearing someone else's shorts?
BNL, Born on a Pirate Ship (1998)
we /.ers are the ppl our friends and family look to when it comes to advice on a new PC, so why dun we juz get everyone to vote with their wallets and then maybe as a whole, consumers wouldn't be held hostage by DRM and the big media companies..
"This attack on your freedoms needs to become widely known."
And what freedoms would that be? The right to be entertained? The right to vote with my dollars? The right to complain to my congressperson? Vista isn't taking anything away from me because...
1-I still can use everything I've purchased.
2-I don't plan on purchasing Vista.
3-I can CREATE (one of those foreign words around here) whatever I want and enjoy it in the comfort of my house.
And last I CAN JUST SAY NO to the urge to own things, be it legally bought, or illegally downloaded. A lesson most of you are just now waking up to.
Don't try. You'll give yourself ulcers, users will hate you and the budget will go through the roof. Anyone who says it's easy is lying, but it can be done on a three year plan. Start moving critical apps to web-based alternatives, replace IE with FF and Outlook with Thunderbird/Sunbird and move off Exchange. In a hospital setting the most time consuming are likely to be a million Access databases scattered across the enterprise and linked spreadsheets. Even at the end of three years there may be a few Windows-only apps that you'll need to keep. You can run those on a kiosk in most instances. I just got done moving the primary application for a medical office from a network app to a web-based application. We had to write it from scratch...took three months. At first it was rough but now they wouldn't trade it. We're almost ready to pull the plug on Exchange. They'll be ready to swap out their desktop OS by this time next year, sooner if we pushed it. It's a small office but if you take it in small bites you'll be surprised how fast it can go. I also work on a lot of defense related projects and was surprised to see one big contractor using Thunderbird and FF.
I keep hoping for better enterprise support for applications like Gmail. That would make some of those bites go faster. But just try to get anyone from Google enterprise sales on the phone. Ha!
If Windows XP isn't routinely connected to the internet and used to surf with IE, it's a fairly reliable OS. Works great as a stand alone kiosk.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The world never had any entertainment before the dawn of DRM & copyright.
[sarcasm off]
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Actually, for personal use, DeCSS is allowed in the US too.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Gutman is a computer security specialist, not a medical imaging person. He wrote his PhD thesis on Security Architecture. Go visit his homepage http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/ and it's pretty clear he knows what he is talking about in IT Security.
That's Steffler, not Gutmann, you idiot.
There's something else those who use the same argument as the OP you're replying to forget It was no bed of rose before copyright, be it creator or consumer. Also as a content creator myself, I fail to see the logic of the "right to be entertained" crowd, that I and others like me would be OK with being abused, be it by majour corporations or some joe in his basement? Open Source releases free "content" all the time but pursues those who abuse the system. And yet when I and other content creators go against those who do the same we're bad guys.* I guess abusing the former would break their system, while abusing ours will not, because...Yeah. People will always write open source no matter how you treat them (Pre-GPL days)
*Make a note that it's not always about money. Just ask any of the websites out there that have their content "borrowed" even when asked nicely not to, and the material is "free" to begin with.
I thought that people could follow the rest of it from the highlighting I'd done, but I guess there are a couple of you who need me to connect the dots for you.
Thanks for showing how it's done.[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
It is explicitly allowed on Linux by the DMCA. See the exclusion clause covering interoperability.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
It's noting new. S/PDIF has a copy protection bit that sometimes can get in the way.
Well, if the editors edited, they would have noticed this is a dupe from last week.
Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection
On December 23rd, 2006 with 283 comments
David Gerard writes "Security researcher Peter Gutmann has released A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection, a detailed explanation of just what...
use Vista, but not DRM content...
Is there anything limiting the use of high quality, non-DRM'd media?
Mainly, I think it's a question of complance with laws like the DMCA, and not getting sued. if the RIAA sues hundreds/thousands of individuals for large amounts of money, do you think MS wants to have to defend a case that they 'aided' copyright violations?
I find it hard to, in the same breath, fault Microsoft for violation of the law for extending their markets, and fault them for not disreguarding the laws reguarding others IP.
Imagine what would happen to the market for iTunes purchases if Windows had the built in ability to crack iTunes content protection...
I second that, although I didn't get hooked until after watching my first episode (9). Actually, I only watched it to the first commercial break and then stopped to grab 1-8 before going any further. Did I download and watch 'priated' episodes commercial-free? Yes. Will I buy the series on DVD? Damned straight!!
Please stop APK.. you're only hurting yourself.
Because it's a wonderful opportunity for them. They can get all the benefits of DRM and blame all the problems on the media companies which "forced" them it implement it. The benefits for MS include making unauthorised software unrunnable; if they don't pay MS for a certificate it's untrusted. The PC will become a big dongle, to make it hard to copy or transfer MS software, and anyone else who signs up. And media companies will have to sign on (literally) to use media secured by the DRM. Don't be surprised if in a few years attempting to use open formats like MP3 trigger off alarms and send messages to the RIAA. It's certainly possible technically, and we have the recent example of Sony's rootkit to show that some have the will.
My article also includes a relevant cartoon.
Music: a super-stimulus for the perception of musicality. Musicality: a perceived aspect of speech.
The Geek is insignificant in the home market.
Harry Potter is significant in the home market. Captain Jack Sparrow is significant in the hone market.
Simply put, without big countries there would be no wars.
Simply put, that is pure, unadulterated poppycock.
Try a little educational reading such as War Before Civilization by Lawrence Keely.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
Live banjo music, played by relatives, close relatives. Very close relatives.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
I don't know why Microsoft is bending over for the media companies.
They're not. Microsoft has a monopoly. They can tell anyone to get lost.
But "compliance" with "requirements" of the RIAA and MPAA is perfect cover for their real game plan, which is to eliminate Open Source (Linux, etc). If Microsoft simply pressured hardware manufacturers (video cards etc) never to release specs, and also to spend billions making it impossible to reverse-engineer their programming specs, just to stop programmers from developing Linux drivers, they'd lose an antitrust action in court.
But by wrapping the plan up in the excuse that it's to meet RIAA and MPAA requirements, Microsoft has a perfect defense.
You had me at "Hello."
First thing he mentions is disabling S/PDIF. Since I use Windows for audio production, Vista's gone. Bye-bye. See-yah.
I look forward to seeing what Cakewalk will do about that one.
Gutmann did talk about medical imaging in the article, which was probably the cause of the submitter's confusion. That, or they were looking for the author's name in the Inquirer article and grabbed the first name with a quote attributed to it.
See this is the exact kind of ignorance and FUD an article like this creates...
Why on earth do you think Vista is DOING ANYTHING to control what you watch or download?
The ONLY DRM in Vista is two things.
DRM for Windows Media Audio/Video, and ONLY if it is turned on by the content provider (like if you bought a song or book that was protected). (Just like Win2k, WinXP no difference!!)
HDCP is also in Vista, but as MOST people will tell you that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will not even start using this type of copy protection until 2011 by most estimates. Secondly, this ONLY AFFECTS people that are STUPID enough to buy a HDCP protected HD movie in the first place. The technology in Vista also doesn't PREVENT you from doing anything, it has the 'requirements' so that HDCP content CAN BE PLAYED, something NO OTHER OS OFFERS!! It takes away NOTHING...
And even the TPC chip is not used for any DRM, Vista uses the TPC chip for authenication if you use Bitlocker on a Laptop, and ONLY to allow the drive encryption authenication, which also can be backed up with a passcode and to a USB device.
Other than that, there is NOTHING in Vista preventing people from doing anything they want to do. WindowsXP had DRM in Windows Media as well, and OSX has tons of DRM in iTunes, but you don't see people crying they will never buy a Mac because of all the DRM, even though OSX's Media DRM is MORE INVASIVE and CONTROLLING than Windows Media.
This article is crap, and what people are learning from it is wrong.
In response to the parent post, I was watching movies and TV from non-legal links last night on my Vista system that controls my home entertainment center. I watch a lot of content that isn't 'licensed' and there is NOTHING I have not been able to watch on Vista. This includes everything from P2P movies and Divx to hidden casts on various sites around the world.
SO if you think Vista will stop you from doing anything you currently do, you are being MISLEAD...
(The article might as well tell everyone Vista will kill their kittens, as the article and the FUD surrounding it isn't anymore accurate.)
That's the best list of reasons to install Vista that I've ever seen. Well said.
Recently, I have been looking harder and harder at Linux. Linux offers a much more stable platform, and I can customize the installation to make it much more difficult to corrupt. The issue is that such a high software investment has been placed in specialized Windows solutions, that it is difficult to port everything to another operating system overnight.
If someone was smart, they'd start advertisting the fact that they support a distro with high availability and with standardized APIs and file locations for medical software manufactors. Then get more medical software manufactors to build to their distro. Like the LSB but with the whole system spec'ed out.
Cheers
Ben
Does your "tough" include Open Source (including Linux) as a choice? Or would that break your argument?
It doesn't break the argument - yet. Not enough people are aware of/use open source. MS is still a de facto monopoly, at least in the home market.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The only question is how long is it going to take for GNU/Linux to become a complete and viable alternative. Which version of Ubuntu will finally gain mass adoption: Will it be Ubuntu Promiscuous Penguin or Ubuntu Unscrupulous Unicorn (UUU)?
Except what will happen when Vista has a 80% install base and the only content being released is protected?
You mean like 100% of all blu-ray and HD-DVD consumer players ALREADY HAVE?
This is really stretching reality, MS has NO control over this, nor even 'encourages' it. Look up the recent story where Gates himself tells people to buy CDs and rip the music yourself instead of buying online with DRM.
MS was forced to add HDCP to 'enable' HDCP content to play, that is all.
If you are so worried about an 80% install base with protected content, I suggest you start focusing on Apple today. iPod has the market and is not only super DRM, locked into iTunes as the sole product that can touch the device, but even locked into the Apple ONLY store for Music content. Thus giving Apple 100% control of an 80% base, all with DRM.
Even MS's own Windows Media DRM is VERY optional, and is a feature only when content providers can't sell copyrighted material without a control mechanism like audible.com. You don't find DRM doing ANYTHING on the computer or forcing consumers to do anything with DRM. MS's DRM with Windows Media doesn't even force users to use Media Player, in contrast to Apple and iTunes. Any developer can make a DRM enabled player and device software like creative and various other companies do.
So even if Vista does reach a 80% install base, big deal, no one has to buy into protect content, and in the words of Bill Gates, don't support the companies that force you to, especially if you are buying physical media where DRM is not needed.
The market will not let DRM controlled content win, trust me on this. Look at the old DVD competition pushed by Circuit City, it was a buy the media, but it was a own/rent concept that locked the user from playing the content after a certain number of plays. It failed almost immediately, and play old DVDs won out, mainly because they weren't limited, and secondly because cracks for DVD encryption pushed the viability of DVD content beyond the physical media.
DRM will never succeed in a consumer market, unless it makes sense and is used with mild constraints.
The only company online that this makes sense and meets this standard so far that I have found is audible.com, where audible books do need protection for online access to give the publishers and authors their dues. Since 2000 and using Windows DRM, I now have over 200 book titles available to me at any comptuer I sit down at, and I can even burn them to physical media.
This is the only DRM I have ever supported, and I can understand the reasoning behind their DRM, as it is not setup to harm the buyers, but instead gives the book publishers more incentive to publish audio books online for people like me that want the book immediately. You also don't see the book industry pushing to keep companies like Audible off the market as you find in the Music and Video industry, it seen as a good thing from their side instead of a potential risk.
However, I don't usually support DRM, and most people don't. That is why DRM that has NO PURPOSE but to screw consumers will never succeed.
And back to Vista, again it does NOTHING with regard to control or DRM or access to the computer than XP or OSX or any other mainstream OS does. All the Vista boogey men stories of TPC enabled applications and DRM software were all false FUD and myths, Vista is essentially no different than any previous version of Vista. PERIOD.
China's economy was destroyed primarily by England who whupped their butts in order to open China up to opium trade. Capitalism, thus, played a part in their downfall. Actually, it was British imperialism moreso than capitalism.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Because Apple's business model for iPods is more along the lines of "get some DRM'ed songs for nearly free (as Apple's bottom line is concerned), and pay us big bucks for an iPod to play them."
Apple doesn't actually make much money with iTunes, and it's actually managed to push the record labels into making even less money in the process. (Which is an accomplishment, no doubt, when dealing with some of the biggest sharks in history.) Previously you'd buy a whole CD or a single for pretty much half the price of the whole CD. Now you buy the 1 or 2 songs that interest you from iTunes, for $1 or $2. (And unlike radio, you don't thereafter go and buy the CD too.) The record label gets even less of that, and Apple gets barely enough to cover their expenses.
Where Apple makes its money in that deal is by selling iPods to play those songs. If you look at their sales numbers, for every 10-20 songs sold on iTunes, they sell an iPod. That't the money maker in that deal.
Seriously, the whole thing is a textbook example of how to build a monopoly of interlocking parts. You can't compete with the iPod on fair ground because the first thing the average lemming will see in your player is: "but it doesn't work with iTunes!!!" You can't really compete with iTunes because it's predatory pricing at its finest, and because "but your DRM doesn't work on my iPod!!!".
The only wrench in what could be a good monopoly mechanism is the availability of MP3s, but otherwise the model is there.
So, as a side-note, if you detested it in MS, well, glad to know you admire Apple for doing the exact same thing. Windows and Office, Windows server and clients, etc, is the exact same model of interlocking parts to raise the entry barriers. You can't compete with one part without competing with all of them. That's how you kill a free market.
And if you wondered why, for example, Sony shafts themselves so often by trying to push their own shitty codecs or media (minidisk or UMD) on everything, even game consoles, now you know why: because if they actually pulled that heist just once, they'd be in just that kind of situation, where they control both halves of an interlocking monopoly mechanism. But I digress.
At any rate, now you know why Apple can't just give free iPods. You somewhat guessed right that it would indeed be even more profitable to bring in the Macs as third piece of that monopoly recipe. But that would require it to be a part that raises the entry barriers, as in, for example, making the iPod and iTunes only work with Macs. But they're not in a position to pull that kind of a heist at the moment. If it were back in time, at the apex of Mac popularity, then they could. But not right now.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Warfare is endemic in Humanity.
From the Book of Joshua (abbreviated)...
Chapter 6 -
1. NOW Jericho was straitly shut up because of the children of Israel: none went out and none came in.
21 - And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
24 - And they burnt the city with fire and all that was therein.
Does this sound familiar to anyone? This is almost pre-historic siege warfare and what could be described as ethnic cleansing. I'm not picking on the Jewish Nation, it's just that they were kind enough to record their deeds where so many others did not. The archaeological record shows many examples of pre-historic walled cities that were destroyed in sieges, so from the earliest days of 'civilisation' we have fought each other.
Travelling forward in time at a rate of 1 second per second.
The second one is, artists do need to eat, but nowadays we have a glut of artists producing music solely for money, and the quality of that work is crap. Utter crap. See: Britney Spears.
Also, plenty of artists produce music for free - good quality music. Check the demo scene for a good example. Look up Skaven, Xerxes, Necros, Basehead, oh heck just go to http://www.modarchive.com/ - there is a whole universe of artists who make free music, and a ton of it is very good.
Also look up The Ur-Quan Masters for artists who make KILLER game music.
As far as I know, the latter wasn't paid. How does that figure into your equation?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
"If Apple can make Unix look and work well, then why can't Linux?" because there's no such organization called "Linux." Everyone is out there doing their own thing. Nobody knows what linux or its apps are supposed to look like. With a mac, you can tell what it is and how a mac app is supposed to work
Firefox Power http://firefoxpower.blogspot.com/
Despite all efforts of Apple, Vista is my prime reason for switching to Mac.
Doing a good job is like spilling coffee on a dark suit, you feel warm all over, but nobody notices.
"Firefox has been gnawing stronger and stronger on the share of Internet Explorer, and even Safari in some respect."
I don't know a single Mac user that actually uses Firefox on their Mac - it takes way longer to start up, and is generally slower than Safari. Also, Safari scrolls smoothly while Firefox does not. Took me about 5 seconds to just go and delete Firefox after trying it on my new Mac some time ago. It's a huge deal having to wait 10x the amount of time for a program to load, when they offer the exact same features, essentially.
"The technology in Vista also doesn't PREVENT you from doing anything, it has the 'requirements' so that HDCP content CAN BE PLAYED, something NO OTHER OS OFFERS!! It takes away NOTHING..."
Whoa, wait a second...
From the Wikipedia page on HDCP:
"HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc players allow content providers to set an Image Constraint Token (ICT) flag that will only output full-resolution digital signals using HDCP. If such a player is connected to a non-HDCP-enabled television set and the content is flagged, the player will output a downsampled 480p signal."
That sounds like it's taking away quite a lot. That sounds like it's making it so all of your HDCP-"protected" videos can only be watched at a maximum resolution of 640x480. Even worse, "downsampled" pretty much means "scaled down using some cheap commodity chip that pixelates the crap out of your video".
Were you actually being serious when you were trying to make it seem like HDCP is a feature in Vista actually beneficial to users in any manner at all? Buying HDCP-"enabled" products is just paying up your protection money so you can watch your legally purchased videos at the resolution you paid for.
In fact, buying Vista or other HDCP-enabled products makes it that much easier for companies to prevent you from doing what you want with the media you spend your hard-earned cash on. Hey, it's your choice if you want to maintain the idea that DRM is a good thing, but somehow I have a feeling you're not going to feel so good in the end when you're locked into such crippled technology.
From http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/stream/output _protect.mspx
From the doc
"By contrast, the Windows-based PC is designed to be an open platform. Anyone can load software on it; it is easy to write software for it, because all the interfaces are well defined and published; and there are many good software tools available."
Open platform? By who's definition?
LOL!
Look man, people don't care. Most computers run Windows. That's all Joe Sixpack knows and he'll never "wake up". Joe Sixpack uses his PC to browse the Internet, read and write e-mail, to write the occasional letter and perhaps some other tasks like balancing the checkbook, doing his taxes, managing photo's, etc. When Joe Sixpack wants to watch TV or listen to music he moves to his living room and pop's in a DVD or a CD and watches or listens that way.
We geeks are the ones who rip and re-mix media. Make backup copies of our DVD's, rip DVD video to our iPods to watch on the go, etc. We are aware that the **AA and companies like Microsoft are trying to take away our ability to do this but Joe Sixpack has no idea it's possible and if he finds out it's possible when he sees the process we have to go through to do it he thinks it's way to complicated anyway. He's not aware that he's losing anything because he isn't since he can't do this stuff in the first place.
He's got bigger problems to deal with like taking care of the family, saving for retirement, watching the game on Sunday, etc.
"effective" in this context must be taken to mean "it's not possible to unknowingly access protected content."
It has little to do with how technically robust the measures are. It has everything to do with the content owners demonstrating their wish that their materials not be copied, and respecting those wishes being compulsory. They could use XOR encryption if they want.
If I go into a glass phone booth and close the door, I am demonstrating my intent that my end of the conversation be private. You might accidentally overhear my conversation if I had the phone booth door open. But you accidentally press your voice memo recorder against the glass to capture vibrations, even though this demonstratest that my efforts to secure secrecy aren't "effective".
The reason that the law might need to protect DRM'd content is because DRM is ineffective in a technical sense, and probably always will be.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
As of a year ago, brand new Phillips MRI scanners were using Windows. The customer engineer I worked with said they had switched recently from UNIX and couldn't figure out why. I do know that we ran into problems that forced us to reboot the system at least daily and more often when doing heavy scan regimens.
science is a religion
People don't cry when you cut up a banjo.
This makes XP seem positively desirable, meaning MS will certainly shut down XP product activation soon.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Been smoking crack long? Yes, Windows Vista is the best rat shit ever - but it is still RAT SHIT!
Let me say that again: Businesses!
Most businesses aren't concerned that their employees may not be able to view HD content on their desktop PC's, as that is not what they hire people to do (in general). As long as Microsoft can assert that a desktop machine running Windows Vista will continue to be able to fulfill enterprise business requirements in a stable, reliable way there will be plenty of businesses perfectly ready to plunk down their money to get what Microsoft promises will be "the most stable and secure computing experience to date."
Better have a look at Microsoft's balance sheet - somehow, I doubt that the majority of profits come from individual user sales! Their big bucks come from per-seat volume licensing of OS and productivity products - that's their bread-and-butter! I don't think a financial clearing-house, or a medical supplies company, or your average insurance office will really get sweaty about HD-DVD playback being broken because there's no HDMI interface to the ol' VGA monitor.
Before the masses point out that there are plenty of productivity killing traps in Microsoft Vista (and there are), Microsoft will simply assure businesses that as long as their hardware doesn't change drastically they can expect their machines to continue operating flawlessly. The relative truth or falsehood of that assertion is irrelevant; Microsoft will say it and businesses will accept it. There are way too many large organizations with PHB's at the helm for the technically savvy to prevent this from happening. After that, those businesses which were insightful enough to avoid the "Microsoft upgrade cycle" will ultimately be forced to come along by way of remaining compatible with the rest of industry.
Don't like what you see in Vista? Too bad - once it's entrenched in business it'll make inroads in the home (how many /.'ers use software at home similar to their employer's software so that they can be more productive at work? I, for example, run openSuSE at home because my employer uses SuSE Linux Enterprise Distribution in the workplace; it lets me be more productive at home and at work because I can leverage what I learn in one environment to the other).
'Windows Vista Ultimate'
.. It also applies even if .. Microsoft knew or should have known about the possibility of the damages"
"While the software is running, you may use but not share its icons, images, sounds, and media"
"The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software"
'You may not sell software marked as "NFR" or "Not for Resale."'
"The first user of the software may make a one time transfer of the software, and this agreement, directly to a third party"
"You can recover from Microsoft and its suppliers only direct damages up to the amount you paid for the software
"The limited warranty covers the software for one year after acquired by the first user"
--
was if you want to read LSNiH then just read the EULA (Score:5, Interesting)
davecb5620@gmail.com
To me it seems that Microsoft has been willing to make the changes to their OS that the content providers have "demanded" in order to allow their protected content to be played back on a PC. That doesn't mean that Microsoft will completely control this market just that other people who want to provide that same service will also have to meet the approval of the content providers. Apple might, I doubt Linux ever will. Bitch about that all you want but Microsoft wanted to sell their product and having this functionality is a sales feature and I'm sure it cost them a bunch of development time to implement it, hopefully it will take less time to break it :-) Cablecard is a perfect example - try getting your hands on the hardware if you don't have an "approved" device for instance. What should have been a boon for say MythTV instead could kill it. Microsoft simply made their product compliant is all - and so did TIVO :-(
So, in this particular case, I'd say it's the content "providers" you ought to be angry with not Microsoft for being willing to bend over and take direction from the providers. Certainly they could've "taken a stand" but they want to make a profit and thus bent over. Want to make a change? Don't buy the new content and stop buying the old if you can manage it. Just realize that until enough people do that no one will notice....
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Just sayin'.
This is part of the subtext both of the original article, and of this most recent post, so I thought I'd share what I know about it. FWIW, I'm a radiologist--that is, an MD who interprets the results of imaging studies--and an informatics geek.
Images are created on whatever imaging device--CT scanner, MR scanner, ultrasound machine, digital X-ray machine--and manipulated by the device's controlling system to do simple annotations, reformatting, etc. This is typically a Unix-based system running custom software designed and maintained by the device's vendor. The images are not usually interpreted on these systems.
From there, the images are sent to the PACS (Picutre Archiving and Communication System), which is just a gigantic central image database. These also tend to be Unix-based systems.
There tend to be two front-ends for looking at images in the PACS database. The first is the radiologist's interface, which is a high-end video workstation dedicated to showing medical images with the greatest possible fidelity. Most systems I've seen are Windows-based (Windows 2000, in our case) and run software which was built by the the imaging system vendors in the late 1990's. Much is made of the "lossless" nature of the images which are displayed; for example, when you log into such a machine, you're warned about how "This is a medical device" and that you shouldn't mess with it. Much is also made of "diagnostic-quality monitors" and high-end video cards to drive the monitors. This is an artifact from the early days of digital imaging interpretation in radiology, when there was a great deal of concern about whether the quality of the digital images would be adequate for us to figure out what was going on in Grandma's chest X-ray if we weren't looking at a piece of acetate. Most of these concerns have died away, as the differences in resolution and dynamic range turned out to be relatively minor and the added conveniences of being able to manipulate the images digitally turned out to be huge. For example, the new LCDs I seen being put on PACS workstations are off-the-shelf Dell 22-inchers, as far as I can tell.
Finally, there are "non-diagnostic" interfaces to the PACS images, which do tend to be web-based. These are so non-radiologist doctors can look at the images, too. Some are IE-based, and use an ActiveX control to display the images, and some use a Java applet. These are displayed with lossy compression (since someone might want to look at them from off-site via a VPN), and officially are not allowed to be used for interpretation. And in fact, I wouldn't want to; it's a lot harder to see subtle things on them than on a full-blown PACS workstation. Part of that is just the interface (it's hard to use those stupid ActiveX/applet things) and part of it is crummy/mis-configured monitors, but I suppose compression artifacts could also play a role.
So, to review: you go see your doctor, Dr. Smith, in her office, and she orders a chest X-ray for you because you're coughing and have a fever. You come to the hospital, and the nice technologist takes frontal and lateral view of your chest on the digital X-ray machine. He then goes back to the X-ray control room, and sees that the images are pretty good, and so he sticks your name on them, and a marker of the date/time and his name, and so on, and then sends them to the hospital's PACS system. I (the radiologist) am working at my PACS workstation, going through the long list of all of the CT scans, MR scans, and X-rays taken in the hospital. I get to your chest X-ray and look at it; I don't seen any sign of pneumonia, so I write a report (the subject of a whole different set of informatics) that basically says "Clear lungs" and that gets entered into your electronic medical record. Then, Dr. Smith back in her office can see your X-ray via her Web-based interface. If she wonders about something she sees, she can call me up and say, "What's that stuff at the left ape
Happy Premise #3: Even though I feel like I might ignite, I probably won't.
From TFA:
Elimination of Open-source Hardware Support
In order to prevent the creation of hardware emulators of protected output devices, Vista requires a Hardware Functionality Scan (HFS) that can be used to uniquely fingerprint a hardware device to ensure that it's (probably) genuine. In order to do this, the driver on the host PC performs an operation in the hardware (for example rendering 3D content in a graphics card) that produces a result that's unique to that device type.
In order for this to work, the spec requires that the operational details of the device be kept confidential. Obviously anyone who knows enough about the workings of a device to operate it and to write a third-party driver for it (for example one for an open-source OS, or in general just any non-Windows OS) will also know enough to fake the HFS process. The only way to protect the HFS process therefore is to not release any technical details on the device beyond a minimum required for web site reviews and comparison with other products.
There's more where that came from. RTFA, people!
And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
In New Zealand, it's actually impossible to buy a region-locked player. All DVD players here play all regions.
It's stunning to me, that in the USA things are different. Why would your consumers support defective/restricted products? Sure, you probably get 95% Region 1 DVDs, but what do you do when someone sends you a DVD from Britain or Australia?
I guess consumer ignorance is easy to blame (Given that the average American consumer couldn't distinguish his asshole from his elbow), but DVDs have been available now for a long time, and conventional wisdom must already have come down on the side of "You must have a region free DVD player", rather than "Let's just buy what's easily buyable."
Personally, I always take great care to tell businesses that I won't be buying their latest piece of DRM infected crap, and in many cases, I assert that I'll continue breaking the law by downloading copyrighted material, until such time as non-DRMed content is available for legitimate purchase.
If the manufacturers don't get this feedback from potential customers, then how can they ever hope to break out of the DRM cycle? Only by making it more costly to have it IN than to remove it, that's how.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
The claim was made that it is *illegal* to *use* libdecss et al, is simply false.
I called the OP on that, and some argument ensued. But nobody posted chapter and verse of the law (or even named a jurisdiction) that makes the *USE* of DeCSS or other DVD decoders illegal.
I don't want to participate in a side argument. I just don't want that kind of disinformation to stand. It is *not* illegal to *use* these decoders to watch DVDs.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
To add to your very helpful post, our neuroradiologists and interventional radiologists like using the web interface from home so they can give an opinion on an acute stroke without having to wait to come into the hospital. So if the interventionalist says it's a go the patient can be waiting in the angio suite by the time he gets there.
The DRM in Vista will probably make all our lives a bit more expensive, and probably more irritating, but for medical applications that use Windows I suspect a bigger problem is going to be MS's more and more invasive copy protection. Do you want a hospital computer chatting over the network with Microsoft? What about the possibility that a more or less critical computer could have it's OS shut down because MS mistakenly decides it's not certified?
Because Linux is stupidly tough to run/learn, does not run Windows software easily and isn't installed on your friend's PC. Oh, and if you don't know someone who is already a Linux Guru, then just forgetaboutit(tm).
Every 2 years or so, I try and install Linux, in the vain hope that it'll be smart, simple and ituitive. Guess what: IT NEVER IS, AND IT IS UNLIKELY EVER TO BE.
That is, unless Microsuck gets even stupider than it already is.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
If your interpretation were correct, then everyone who used *any* DVD player of any kind, would commit the identical offense.
The relevant court rulings have dodged the critical issue of trying to come up with a sane workable definition for exactly what constitutes "authorisation" for access and what it does and does not include. The way the court rulings have been going have been basically to the effect that anything the copyright holder dislikes is unauthorized.
I would agree with you that there is no reasonable workable legal construction to make using a DVD player legal and make using DeCSS illegal, but the vague and unreasonable argument the MPAA has been going with is something to the effect that they have authorized the DVD player manufacturers and that using the authorized DVD player is an authorized form of access, and that DeCSS is an unauthorized means of access, and that the courts have besically been covering their eyes to this mess in the DMCA and going along with it. That it is not the person who is authorized to access, but it is the means that is authorized, and that question of authorisation is resolved based on some unknown magical rules.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Some of what he says is actually correct. While I won't respond to everything you've posted I'll try to answer some of it so that you can at least get a sense of where the guy is coming from. Note that I'm not saying I agree or diagree with his position but I've been forced to research VISTA a good bit for work so I'm not completly clueless as to what's in store for us :-(
:-)
1) Laws of physics. Yes actually he's right. You see DRM is supposed to prevent us from being able to copy signals that are in the end analog. In order for it to actually work 100% we would have to have our ears replaced with digital jacks. Obviously not going to happen so in order for this to work Microsoft must have found a way to prevent you from using a microphone to record the audio (for instance). This is why folks says that for DRM to work it must break the laws of physics - this isn't just Peter saying this. I'll also note that some cmopanies have claimed to have the ability to close this "analog hole" buit to date nothing has materialized that actually does it.
2) Driver signing - in 64BIT VISTA Microsoft says all drivers must be signed. In 32BIT it's optional but encouraged and we'll get the usual pop-ups. If a driver is found to be vulnerable yeah they probably WILL kill it's certificate. Why? Because they are bending over to the media companies like CableCard and will not wish to lose that certification. An example of how far companies will go to get these certifications can be found with the TIVO S3 where they threw out significant functionality (Tivo2Go) in order to become "certified" and in their addition of DRM to retain their Macrovision license. Microsoft has now made themselves subject to much the same arm twisting... BTW, the MS blog I read that mentioned driver signing stated that they did this in 64BIT because there was little chance of breaking backwards functionality and that they couldn't quite do it in 32BIT but really wanted to. I do not know if 64BIT is required for the advanced media features but I'll bet that signed drivers will be required throughout for the advanced stuff to work on 32BIT.
3) Broken hardware... I will point out the HDMI video cards that turned out had an HDMI capable chipset (HDCP and all) but no hardware keys for the HDCP that sort of screwed the consumers. Yeah, they do sometimes ship "broken" hardware and when folks found out their spiffy vid cards wouldn't be compliant they were pretty pissed off!
4) Killer NIC card? I know some hardcore guys that play in tournaments considering that thing. es, a few milliseconds makes a difference to them and yes they run HIGH end video cards as a result. It makes no sense to me either but if the price were right I might consider that card too
5) Installing Blu Ray of HD DVD drives in the system doesn't matter. All of this DRM crap is in there working anyway and the addition of this hardware doesn't somehow suddenly turn it all on. This is part of his ppoint, the system could be more fragile because of these design considerations. As I understand it the DRM drivers all run at a special priv level seperate from the others - now that seems like an odd decision to make if you were trying to build an optimal system for the user doesn't it? I would also point out that there are other DRM contents out there over and above that which comes on physical media. I own a Buffalo Linktheater and it can play a TON of content. However certain DRM'd WMA files tip it right over because the damned media wants to phone home for authorization blah blah. You can get screwed by stuff like that without ever having installed goofy DRM'd hardware. Windows Media Player has been chock full of this DRM crap for awhile on XP if you've been paying attention.
On the flip side Microsoft has REALLY worked hard to make Vista more secure. Buffer overflows may have just been shot dead - memory space shuffling, NX bit for the OS, signing of code, canaries in the stack, no more users running as admin all the time, the lis
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Whoa, wait a second...
How about taking a second to comprehend instead of jumping on Vista for flaws of HDCP (an Intel Standard even)...
Here is what you are missing...
#1. All Consumer Players are ALSO HDCP crippled, so if the video can't be confirmed, it downsamples.
#2. Vista does nothing different than a Consumer Player; however, the FEATURE of Vista is that if the video/monitor can be confirmed, it will allow full HD rendering with no downsampling.
#3. In reference to #2, since Vista does enable HDCP to PLAY AT ALL on Vista, it IS A FEATURE, as HDCP content currently will NOT PLAY on OSX, Linux, Solaris, BSD, and only on select XP machines made from Toshiba that have proprietary HD-DVD hardware in the units. So it is a feature if the user DID WANT TO PLAY HDCP content, as Vista is the ONLY OS that you can currently play it on, outside of a stand alone consumer player that also 'downsamples/cripples' the display.
I don't know why people MAKE THIS A VISTA issue, it has really NOTHING TO DO with Vista. Please for the love of God, let people finally 'get this' and stop buying into the FUD and ignorance the original article/post tried to start that tries to get people LIKE YOU up in arms about Vista.
HDCP has NOTHING TO DO with Vista any more than a DVD decryption Codec has anything to do with OSX, Linux, BSD, or XP.
Yes; and with nothing more sophisticated than a few 74HC TTL ICs, the copy-prevention bit can be stripped out as though it was never there. Just build a simple serial-to-parallel converter, mung the data as you think fit, and re-serialise it. Framing is the only semi-awkward part; but while you've got everything in parallel, it's not actually that hard to figure it out.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
The fact that it's in other players isn't unknown to me, but the discussion was about Vista, not hardware players...
The fact that Vista is the only OS that allows HDCP content reminds me of how crappy and questionable this sort of excessive DRM really is (I mean, if only Microsoft will support it in their OS, well, that says enough on its own).
the aim of the new drm things is to transform the merely inconvenient into the impossible. Sometimes I think that the cyberpunk dystopia (with shady "data slicers" in dark alleys) is just around the corner.
On the other hand, perhaps the media companies believe that inconvenience can be transformed into an additional sale. Instead of audiophile buying a hybrid SACD, with a highly encrypted high resolution surround sound program for the home theatre, a standards compliant CD layer for the car, ripped audio for an mp3/ogg/flac player and possibly a cellphone ringtone (or some equally marginal byproduct), the sale would come in the form of multiple licenses.
If I remember, Microsoft bailed on bluray because of something called managed copy. From one point of view, this seems rather more flexible than one monolithic , high definition stream that is resistant to all uses except one-- watching it on a HD display. But it also allows certain companies, like MS, to get in to the lucrative license sales business.
...they get the money from us. See my small cartoon: http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2006/12 /its_just_not_ea.html
Bye,
Oliver
I find it hilarious my post has been modded as flamebait since that whats Gutmanns paper reads like
I mean, if only Microsoft will support it in their OS, well, that says enough on its own
Apple has talked about and announced HD support as well, and to implement HD fully they would also have to turn on HDCP...
However, like I said HDCP is 5 years out before it is has any proability of common use, and by then it will be dead. Also again, just because MS enables a technology to work, that doesn't make them the evil ones.
People should be yelling at content providers to ENSURE they don't use HDCP, they should also yell at companies like Intel that invented this CRAP.
My post was not meant to be a legal definition, hence the, "in layman's terms". You'll notice that the quotes that I took directly from the U.S. Copyright Office's post also use the word, "property". If it bothers you, substitute, "copyright", and, "copyright holder".
As for tapers, they usually have the permission of the band, which constitutes an oral contract.
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
I truthfully have not had this issue. My first surprise is that you are making content on Windows rather than a Mac. I do this, but its for personal use. If I was making content commercially, I would be using a Mac.
/or some codec pack (yes, I use codec packs, so sue me), and you should be fine. I am dualbooting XP and Vista, and its not like Vista goes in and puts DRM in all your media files or something wierd like that.
That aside, I doubt you will have this problem unless you are using Microsoft's tools (which, in using RC1 and RC2, I have been quite impressed with). I use Adobe Premiere usually, and I have not had any problems. Hook it with Canopus Procoder and
The only issue I have had is trying to use the 64 bit version of Vista - there are practically no supported codecs for it. A handful of codecs, such as Quicktime, will let you install and work with them. VLC works, but of course, I am pretty sure VLC uses its own built in codecs. As such, I can get videos to play in VLC on Vista x64 that I cannot get to work in WMP on there, because of lack of codecs. However, if youare running the 32 bit version of Vista, this should not be a problem. I am also sure in a few months, there will be 64 bit codec packs out there.
So I say, if you really want to upgrade to Vista, go ahead. Of course, going from Windows 2000 to Vista, you will notice a HUGE difference in system requirements. I could run 2000 on 64 meg of ram, on some higher end Pentium 1s. Heaven help you if you try running Vista on a machine older than a P4 or a 1GHz Athlon with under 512 meg of ram. If you are doing content editing in Vista, I recommend some dual-core processor, with a minumum of 1 gig of ram, preferably 2 gig.