Slashdot Mirror
Vista and the Music Industry
BanjoBob writes "Vista locks down all the DRM functionality and actually reduces the quality of playback of some media. This includes both audio and video content. As a company creating music and video products, how can we use Vista to create, distribute, and use legal media? I have read nothing to indicate that Vista has a model to allow 'authorized' use without causing problems. Currently we use Windows 2000 and Linux products. If what we understand is true, Vista and future Microsoft products won't be viable options for us since prior to publication, media must be copied multiple times, edited, moved around, re-edited and often modified into various forms (trailers, etc.) before, during, and after production. This naturally includes backups and recovery. If Vista is intent on prohibiting these uses, then Microsoft is intent on keeping their products out of the realm of content creation and editing. How do others deal with these issues?"
Short answer: OS X. Long answer: Linux, assuming "better" support and/or a "blessed" hardware configuration -- perhaps a "digital media" distribution (yeah, it's been done) that's got more emphasis on high-end audio and video interfaces. Note that OS X has/will have "better" DRM "interoperability" since it's a closed enough platform to make the asset holders comfortable.
...if people want to spread anti-DRM FUD, I say we let them! : )
But seriously, you're absolutely correct that Vista won't screw with non-DRM'd media. The flip side of that, though, is that Vista's DRM "support" won't do him any good either. Even though Microsoft has been claiming that the DRM will help producers of content like him, I think it's obvious that it'd be just too damn inconvenient.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Since Vista's desktop sound effects are all supposed to be copy-protected (read: defective), doesn't that mean that Vista is always running in degraded mode?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
But "glitches" happen everywhere. Why should Vista be any worse? Because you heard that it behaves a certain way with certain *protected* media? Jesus Christ, lay off the crack for a minute and listen to yourself. You are speaking nothing but FUD.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
You see, modern computers have this thing you may have heard of called multitasking. Inevitably, this will lead to non-DRM content being processed while DRMed content is also being processed. The problem with Microsoft's implementation is that, when this happens, Vista will apply the downgrading of quality to ALL of the output--not just the DRMed content. And don't think for a minute that this will be an unlikely scenario either. Once proprietary software starts putting DRM on icons or splash videos, this type of interaction will become all but inevitable.
Here's the relevant part of Dr. Gutman's paper on this:
-Grym
Vista can revoke the rights to your editing software when they find out it allows ripping and the authors don't immediately close the hole.
Yes, this is one of the tricky aspects of so-called 'Trusted Computing'. To elaborate: one possibility in 'Trusted Computing' is to disallow certain programs from being run. So, if you use editing software that, among other things, can use DRM-ed media, then if a 'DRM hole' (a security breach) is found in that software, it - the entire program - can be 'switched off' remotely. And this will affect you even if you don't use the DRM-related features, i.e. even if all the work you do with it is on DRM-free media of your own.
I don't believe that we have all the information about the technical details in this area yet. Let's assume for a moment, for simplicity's sake, that what I described above is how it can work. Now, if a DRM hole is found in a program, then Microsoft is in the position of being able to prevent mass copyright infringement by simply pushing a 'critical update' in Windows Update (what could be more critical than upholding the law?). The RIAA/MPAA will demand it, and I don't believe Microsoft will have much choice in the matter but to comply. And this is true even though it isn't in Microsoft's interest to comply - their interest is to keep their customers happy. But just like in P2P lawsuits, the issue will be 'contributory copyright infringement' (and if you think "Microsoft is too big to be sued" - well, the content industry is pretty big too, and anyhow the bigger they are, the more reason to sue them, isn't that how it works?).
The vendor distributing the program with the DRM hole might 'fix' things by closing the hole, of course, but that might take time. They might, in theory, offer a DRM-free version for people who don't need the DRM features, and that version would always work (probably overly optimistic, I know). But all of this is speculation: we simply have no experience with such circumstances. 'Trusted Computing' is bringing in a completely new set of rules, and anybody's guess as as good as another's.
"Since Vista's desktop sound effects are all supposed to be copy-protected" I didn't even get that far into reviewing Vista. Just goes to show how money hungry these bastards are getting. Next they'll be copy-protecting wallpapers. How does MS get away with violating our rights in such a obvious way? Obvious answer is any Linux ;).
People like doing that though. I just got myself an iPod, and was much mocked by my friends for this, citing several dreadful reasons garnered from the anti Apple Fud vendors, all of which I disproved within a day.
1: You can't get music back off it.
- Well actually you can really easily, and organised by artist/album too if you use ipod-access or similer.
2: You can't use it to transfer files.
- Wrong again, iTunes lets you do it, but even without that option you can make a folder on the iPod and do that yourself with ease.
3: iTunes will nuke all your files instantly if you connect it to another computer.
- Nope, only if you choose to resynch it with a new machine, otherwise it'll leave it as is quite happily.
So, I win, and the iPod is rather nice with it. I rather suepected that their arguments were a load of dingoes kidneys, and I was right. FUD does serve one useful purpose though. It neatly reveals the easily fooled people.
Not just that. That is what Microsoft would like us to believe now as it is making all opponents of DRM square off with the recording industry while it is pushing for a completely different agenda.
Media playback is not going to be the primary use of Vista DRM in as little as 2 years from now. Vista + MS Office (post 2003) + active directory should provide businesses with a content control solution top to bottom. Data theft will become considerably more difficult, so will data leaks both internal and external. If implemented correctly any data the company values will be locked down using DRM to the company systems with a very strict and effective policy all the way to the desktop using TPM, per machine, per user keys, etc. Any mid-size and large business will jump at the opportunity. They will be idiots not to.
There are consequences of this:
And all this will happen quietly while we are paying attention only to the multimedia side of DRM (which I personally do not give a flying fuck about as dedicated players are way cheaper than a PC compliant to all HD requirements).
The only way to fight this off is to compete with it on merit - to have DRM top to bottom in the OS all the way to the word processor, mail client and the desktop. If OO wants to be relevant in 2 years it will have to have it in a year from now.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
It seems incredible someone wanting to perform perfectly reasonable activities should turn to Slashdot, of all places, to attempt to get some sort of help.
.. and that souls actually exist .. but let's not get into that]. ...
... is it me, or does everyone thing the "new and improved" help systems are damned near useless .. it's just me. Sorry. I digress. I'm sure when I used to hit F1 I would actually get something vaguely useful and vaguely relevant, fairly quickly ... nah, surely not).
Either someone is having a bit of a joke, or, just possibly, Microsoft has truly lost the plot.
Ok, this is Slashdot. Let's assume MS has lost the plot.
What have they done - and why have they done it?
Well, it would appear they have entirely sold their souls to the content owners (not producers). [Note, this assumes they had souls
They have created a computer system so perverted to the content owners' cause it will spend half the power of the hosting computer in checking to make sure no content is inadvertently revealed in some copiable way.
To this end, they have an extraordinary scheme of in-computer and on-line checking. They will even disable computers if they believe them to be misbehaving. The merest hint of a possibility will cause quality downgrading
Not, personally, a direction I wanted to go in. Or Microsoft to go in, actually (like most people, I actually try to use their systems
But the questions is - why?
It's possible that someone else sold *their* soul, someone who could put in place laws to force all this to happen.
Or it's possible that some sort of deal/deals was/were done so MS would get better content. (Before Apple, maybe? Are they really such a threat?)
It's got to be one or the other, surely.
Either way, I don't like the sound of it.
"Cats like plain crisps"
You can disbelieve me if you like; perhaps I'm the devil as far as you're concerned, but to be blunt, just making apps that used to work on the last version of windows work on the next version is hard enough all by itself. We don't have the time, desire, or resources to block your favorite non-DRM player.
If it makes you feel any better, there are very good reasons we don't block non-DRM apps for their non-DRMness:
First, it wouldn't work: to block an app, we need a matching signature. Change the signature (modify the version and checksum of the
Second, non-DRM vendors have just as much right to run as anybody. We would get our asses sued off if we started picking and choosing what apps get to run on Windows; it would be anticompetitive as hell. The only case where we hard-block an app is if it's going to crash, fail to install, fail to run, or corrupt data.
Third, in appcompat we don't care what you do with your data, really we don't- we just care that you can, and with the app of your choice. Maybe those guys over in Media-Player-land want you to DRM the stuff you rip using it, but over here in appcompat, we're just not interested in trying to run your life. Really.
To be honest, I don't know all that much about how Media Player or any of the other DRM-enabled players treats non-protected content any differently from protected content- like I said, I don't really care all that much about that. I mostly concern myself with making apps work.
I think you didn't read Guttman's article.
Scenario: Medical imaging, displaying a scan on PC which uses a year-old DVI output (no HDCP). Operator fires up image, and opens a DRM'd ebook or other DRM-encumbered content to reference some information relevant to evaluating the scan. The DVI display is degraded by the PVP-OPM constrictor, because Vista sees DRM'd visual content going out over a non-DRM display (DVI w/o HDCP). Hopefully, the operator understands this and closes the ebook/whatever before reading the scan. Cost impact? Cost of prematurely-replacing hardware (video card and monitor -- possibly more -- so they're DVI+HDCP-compliant), cost of retraining operators to ensure they're aware of the issue, cost of management time spent planning for this, cost of technical support time spent diagnosing intermittent display problems until the issue is well-understood, etc., etc. Not to mention that the new hardware will be more expensive (see ATI's PowerPoint slides from WinHEC '05).
(Guttman's example was playing DRM'd audio to drown out background noise in the office environment, but I suspect Vista's smart enough not to downgrade the video because of DRM'd audio content.)
No, the sky's not falling. And yes, FUD doesn't only flow from Redmond. But Vista genuinely is set to cause quite a lot of additional costs and loss of productivity at several levels, because a small number of large influential content providers are successfully dictating it and Microsoft, Intel, and others are going along.
Guttman says that the specs on this constitute the "longest suicide note in history". We'll see.
Unprotected media should be entirely unaffected by it.
Since Vista is locking down the secure media paths, and degrades paths or shuts them down at the kernel level, I don't think I would want to be in the middle of a Skype call and visit a website with a protected content video of the latest news broadcast that degrades or shuts off the analog hole.
Maybe it's FUD, Maybe the Fear is real. Can visiting a website degrade or disable your analog audio out, even if it is being used for something else? I'm going to wait on this one. Real details are somewhat limited. The hard details is if protected media is present (doesn't say if it includes web content) the analog path may be degraded or disabled.
Is it possible to be cut off a Skype call just by visiting a website? Call it FUD if you wish, but the doubt remains until proven otherwise. In the meantime, I don't plan to bleed to death by cutting edge technology. I'll stick with something that is known to work.
The truth shall set you free!
Media DRM on Vista is optional. If you don't like it, don't use it. No, your mp3s won't degrade. And you can copy them as often as you wish.
True, to the best of our knowledge, because it is only common sense isn't it?
Do you know about Microsoft's Zune?
It has wireless music sharing - you can send a song to another Zune player wirelessly. Sounds great, right?
Well, contrary to common sense - Zune infects ALL wirelessly transmitted music with DRM. It doesn't matter if the source was originally infected or totally clean - if you Zune it, it gets DRM.
And, that's not the only precedent - if you use XP's media-player to rip your CD's, you should check the configuration because it defaults to infecting your rips with DRM. At least it did for the original release and many service packs, I think they eventually did change the default to non-DRM, years later and all.
If Microsoft is willing to pull stunts like that, then obviously somewhere within MS, someone with a lot of clout believes in a 100% DRM world. How long until the next service pack for Vista tries to do something that actually makes the current FUD into truth?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
After some prodding and playing with my copy of Vista, some video and audio files (protected and unprotected) and the manual I can say the following holds true for me:
Vista does nothing at all to alter unprotected media, be it on standard hardware or stuff with TPM and HDCP up the wazoo. Nada, zip, zilch. It still runs at the expected quality with no signs of watermarking, bitrate reduction or other nasties. In fact, the file remains totally unchanged. This works even if I move the file between two machines.
The protected media doesn't like playing on a machine which isn't authorised to play it. On a machine authed to play it without HDCP and TPM, it is downsampled from HD to something godawful. On a machine with all the DRM support, it works fine.
Conclusion: Unless you're stupid enough to put DRM on your media, Vista won't tweak with the playback.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
I work in a television production studio. While the designers use Macs, and some of the compositing is done on After Effects on the Macs, the majority of work is done on PCs. That includes 3D, Flash and even traditional animation (ink and paint and then compositing on the computer), and the "heavy duty" compositing is all done on PCs.
With Flash becomming very common for us as we reach out to alternative devices (like phones and digital media players like iPod and the Archos), we'll be using PC based products more. There was one time we were actually considering switching the 3D department to Linux (I would have been ecstatic), but 1) we use too much other PC only software, and 2) when we ran the tests, the images output on Linux were not "compatible" with the images output on Windows (a fault of Maya, not Linux). Althouth they fixed the later, it was too late - test over, Windows stays.
In the other departments in my company, both audio and video post production, and even the live on-air graphics (like the little score you see during sporting events) are all done on PCs. Even "real time" 3D graphics is done on a VizRT PC based system now that sgi is basically dead. Compositing (Flame) and the real time 3D (VizRT) were both done on sgi at first.
So let's put the myth to rest already that professionals only use Macs for content creation. This isn't a recent development, either. Photoshop may have run better on Macs, but professionals still bought PCs because they were less expensive, could still run Photoshop anyway, and had tons of other tools not available on Macs. If ALL you were doing was using Adobe content creation tools, then a Mac was your best bet. Even that's not true anymore.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I had a "network" walkman. Yeah, I would never have bought one, being the cheap bastard I am I do a LOT of research about these things beforehand, and heard all the problems Sony users experienced. But I won one as a door prize at a company Christmas party a few years ago.
It was horrible. The whole "check in/check out" system sucked. You couldn't move music files around on your computer, or back them up and restore them. The OpenMG software was just absolute crap, and you had no choice. You may not have much of a choice with iTunes software, but at least it's good (and there are at least some OSS projects in the works for Linux).
If I'd have put any thought into it, I would never have even opened the box and sold it on ebay for as much as I could get.
I haven't used it in some time, and now I can't even give it to one of my kids because then I'll have to "corrupt" my music collection in order to make it work. Just horrible.
So, while this article may indeed be FUD about Vista, I've never met DRM that didn't make life worse. If Vista is loaded with it, it will most certainly be a worse computing experience than XP or 2000 was if you do any kind of media use.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
It sounds like what might happen is the big players (huge music labels, etc.) will just pay MS to expedite their company's files and processes,
Because the "trusted path" contains everything from the monitor to the OS kernel, the only way to expedite the processes will be to replace everything. You will have to have special video drivers, a special version of Vista and perhaps special hardware. That's the kind of special that killed off non free Unix. The whole point of M$ was that you could use cheap, "off the shelf" equipment without worry. DRM has undone that for them and this creates a huge opportunity for free software.
Welcome to the Year of GNU/Linux.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Try playing unprotected HD stuff on your non-DRM machine, with protected stuff playing in the background. Please report back, because this is the situation that everyone is worried about. Pay specific attention to audio quality.
TIA
It's not exactly rocket surgery.