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?"

Comments

I think you misunderstand

[dtfinch]

DRM is a just tool for content producers. Unprotected media should be entirely unaffected by it. I'd be surprised if the quality reduction wasn't an opt-in feature that only applies to protected media where the producer chooses to enable it. I haven't used it, but I doubt Vista can or would try to prevent an app from decoding and displaying an unprotected video in full quality.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[dtfinch]

I should add that I switched to Linux in early 2004. I support the right to use DRM like I support the right to commit suicide. If publishers want to cut off their revenue with stupid restrictions then let them.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[dtfinch]

I made an embarrassing typo. "DRM is just a tool"

Re:I think you misunderstand

[noidentity]

Dude, Vista is so advanced it can figure out if a single bit is from a media file or from your shopping list! If it's from a media file, it randomly modifies it to prevent you from killing musicians by starving them to death.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[arivanov]

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:

• If Linux+Openoffice do not offer a similar solution they will be firmly sidelined to hobbyland or special dedicated server duties regardless. Having an "open" server or word processor in the document and data flows will become a thing of the past.
• Using the office SDK any non-office document flow including multimedia (the way it is described in the question) can be protected in a similar manner.
• Sun & Co EU recent competition commission wins will become largely irrelevant because MSFT will sideline them back out of their turf with a single swipe.

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.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[tjcrowder]

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.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[dtfinch]

I saw his article, and decided I'll believe it when I see it. They have no reason to degrade the wrong video, or make the entire screen blurry. That'd actually be a heck of a lot harder to do than to just do it right and degrade only the protected video, and would serve no purpose.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[tjcrowder]

I do hope you're right, but even that only eliminates a couple of those costs. Concentrating on one of them: ATI's still going to be spending more (and therefore charging more), as will many other hardware makers. (They've already commented on the amount they've had to spend on lawyers to put the various licensing arrangements they need to have in place.) Audio cards, video cards, motherboards with any on-board audio or video capability, all will be more expensive than they would otherwise have been, and that's the tip of the iceberg. And it'll be interesting to see how much hardware is obsoleted by Vista purely for DRM-compliance (rather than the typical performance) reasons.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[Waffle Iron]

Any mid-size and large business will jump at the opportunity. They will be idiots not to.

Then after productivity grinds to a crawl, and employees complain about having to take and print document images from their cellphone cameras to get their work done, they'll quietly remove the restrictions and everything will be back as it is today.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[cfulmer]

Well, that's a pretty expansive view of DRM, one that covers traditional computer security and encryption. Let me point out the Achilles' heel: you said "If implemented correctly" -- exactly how much work is involved in this correct implementation? How many people need to be trained how to protect information? This is the user population that doesn't understand Word's "Fast Save" feature, yet you are expecting them to understand stuff like user keys? The much more likely scenario is that this DRM will get in the way of what people want to do and they will quickly discover how to create unprotected documents.

You claim that businesses would be idiots not to jump at the opportunity. There must be a lot of idiots out there -- all the press I'm reading says that business isn't exactly jumping at the chance to move to Vista.

One of the great lessons of history is that companies fail when they focus on their own desires instead of those of their customers. MS has done this twice: (1) adding obscenely restrictive multimedia DRM when the very large majority of their customers do not want it; and (2) staying in bed with the hardware manufacturers by failing to control OS-bloat, which forces new computer purchases. It may be that Window's dominant market position is enough to drive this through, for now. Or, it may be that Vista starts a shift to Macintoshes. It's just a matter of time -- no company survives forever by not giving customers what they want.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[Cerebus]

"You claim that businesses would be idiots not to jump at the opportunity. There must be a lot of idiots out there -- all the press I'm reading says that business isn't exactly jumping at the chance to move to Vista."

Neither are governments. Office DRM doesn't play with X.509 PKIs at all, which is what everyone is heavily invested in. Further, while MS likes to make it sound easy to set up a PKI to support their DRM solutions, it really isn't--especially not when you start talking about all the real operational scenarios, like key escrow and recovery, offline functions, remote use, etc.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[arivanov]

That is the reason why I am saying "2 years from now". I am aware that in their infinite wisdom MSFT has made the mistake of going down the "the only auth is active directory auth" route and completely sidelining all third party PKI solutions (including x509). I am estimating 2 years for MSFT to concede and interop or for PKI solution providers to interop with Vista and Office DRM some way.

This is a guess of course and I may be guessing wrong.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[MadJo]

Please correct me if I understand you incorrectly, but are you actually saying that the only way forward is to add DRM?
I hope you are joking.

DRM is most certainly NOT the future. We are seeing more and more companies adopt open source and open standards. If open source software developers start locking in their customers, they are guilty of exactly the same thing that we have been accusing Microsoft of. Microsoft has been locking in with their Office products for years now. And every time a lot of people complain about this. And many people still using older MSO products are left out, and have to buy an expensive upgrade.

We see in the music industry that they are now finally turning away from DRM (though there is still a long way to go), because it's cumbersome for the customer/consumer, and doesn't add any protection for the content providers. It only takes 1 person to crack whatever DRM scheme they are using, and their entire work is suddenly wide-open.
It's security through obscurity, it doesn't solve anything.
And the same will apply to whatever DRM scheme MS will conjure up for their entire line of products.

OOo should never (and I repeat NEVER) adopt any DRM scheme, unless they seriously want to shoot themselves in the foot.

It adds nothing to your perceived benefits of being anti-data theft. Besides the above reasons, most data theft are done from within a company, from people who already have access to the data. So adding DRM will solve nothing. All it takes is 1 person who has access to the documents, to send it in a non-drm'ed fashion to whoever requested it and your data is on the streets.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[mysticgoat]

Any mid-size and large business will jump at the opportunity. They will be idiots not to.

This needs to be thought through very carefully.

Most large and mid-size businesses know that a significant number of improvements in their data flows come from individuals developing new templates, spreadsheets, and other tools at home, on their own time. This is often done in the expectation of making their jobs easier (and the somewhat more distant hope of advancement or maybe a small bonus, or at least an honorable mention at the annual dinner furkryesache). These practices will be stopped by the kinds of controls parent post is talking about. The humming workerbees of 2005 will be reduced to the drones of 1985; the bottom-up flow of innovation that made the downsizings of the 1990s actually work, and that continue to have a positive impact on bottom lines, will be blocked.

Preventing employees from working with data on their own time will be like draining the swamp that sustains a big part of the company's ecosystem. Putting the DRM techniques into action the way parent talks about them would be like a bunch of fishermen ditching an upstream marsh to control mosquitos without bothering to think through where the fish are getting their sustenance.

As any corporate officer knows, it takes more than a well planned organizational chart to keep a business thriving. The important stuff always begins at an informal level, where undocumented meetings between people in different parts of the company thrash out ideas, separating the kernels from the chaff, and various brews are placed in the dark corners of the cubicles and hard drives to ferment. The good stuff isn't presented to the formal management structure until it has been taste-tested, placed in a sparkling clean mug, and offered up on a fancy coaster with a dainty cocktail napkin on the side. The stuff that doesn't work out is quietly poured down the drain without ever being documented.

Narrowly channelling data flows so that they cannot escape the corporate organizational chart is a sure way to prevent the cross-channel meanderings that bring forth the system wide improvements. There will be no new brews to delight the corporate palate. There will be no place for these to ferment in quiet, and very little grain to put into the informal thrashing parties.

Any business that jumps at the opportunity to channelize its data flows is not going to be able to respond as well as its competitors to changes in its environment and is not going to be able to grow. And in business it is either grow or die.

The DRM techniques parent talks about are an excellent improvement for the silo management structures used by big companies in the 1950s and 1960s. The kind of channelling they provide makes for much stronger silos. But today's business environment favors agility and athletic grace over brute strength, and that means opening up more informal communications networks, not shutting them down.

Yeah, there are new problems to face wrt securing company data, etc. But these are new problems and they are not going to be solved by improving on antiquated techniques. Businesses need to be looking for something better than the 3/4 horsepower rototiller they now have for plowing their acreage. With Vista, Microsoft appears to be offering to replace that fussy machine with the finest titanium digging stick money can buy.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[yabos]

Since Vista's display is going through the 3D pipeline they probably do it a lot like OS X where each window is a texture. They can easily manipulate any texture before it's displayed. Anyways I think this example is stretching a lot. Any system as important as a medical imaging station is going to be tested for hundreds of hours before being put into production. To expect it to fail from such a scenario is so far fetched it's never going to happen imo.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[Shelled]

"If publishers want to cut off their revenue with stupid restrictions then let them."

If it were that simple. There is no 'opt' in 'opt-in'. Content providers in many cases own the hardware companies manufacturing media players or work in concert with nominally unrelated industries such as Microsoft, Phoenix and Intel to create 'standards' which leave the consumer little option. Theses oligarchies are backed by now-federal, criminal law resulting from generations of lobby effort preventing work-arounds. Consumers have no choice when purchasing the artistic efforts which represent the vast bulk of contemporary culture, artists have no choice if they want wide distribution, anyone attempting to break the stranglehold risks imprisonment. Car bomber appears a better analogy than suicide, the media/hardware oligarchies will take popular culture with them.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[bensch128]

Of course, after the M$ marketeers are done with them, CIOs in mid - large sized companies will be dying to lockdown/channelize their operations into the DRM monstrasty that M$ wants to sell them.

Sounds about right for the current american business environment....

Cheers
Ben

Re:I think you misunderstand

[xero314]

Consumers have no choice when purchasing the artistic efforts which represent the vast bulk of contemporary culture, artists have no choice if they want wide distribution, anyone attempting to break the stranglehold risks imprisonment.

I get so sick of reading this particular lie, time and time again. Consumers have plenty of choice when it comes to artistic works. The fact that you can't obtain freely works that th artist did not release freely has nothing to do with a particular industry "stranglehold" but instead with an artists right to maintain or relinquish control of their creations. If you don't like the way an artist choses to license their work then chose a different artist. If the consumer makes this change then business will need to change their model to survive.

If you think it is really as bad as you say, and if their are others that think like you, pool your resources to create a for of media distribution that can not be restricted and promote it's use. The RIAA and Microsoft, just as a couple examples, did not become the organizations the are overnight. Have some long term goals and work towards them. The world could probably use a new idea or two. (please not the paradox that to maintain that the system remains open and free that someone must maintain the rights to how the system itself works)

Capitalist are so stupid sometimes. They have to tools they need to make change, and tout it as the only effective way to do so, yet can't take the time or apply the effort necessary to do so.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[Ayende Rahien]

In what world are you living that playing a DRM content is part of a test cycle for a medical system?

Re:I think you misunderstand

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Your "example" problem doesn't actually exist. PVP-OVM doesn't work that way - it downsamples video as part of the VMR9 output path, not by changing the screen resolution or blurring the entire screen.

Let me reiterate: PVP-OVM (video) does not "down-res" your entire display. PUMA (audio) does not "down-res" your display or downsample your audio.

Has anyone who is complaining about Vista's DRM features actually USED the product?

Re:I think you misunderstand

[yabos]

Uh, hello, did you read it? "and opens a DRM'd ebook or other DRM-encumbered content to reference some information relevant to evaluating the scan."
Something DRM protected regarding how to interpret the image would certainly be something that should be tested.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[nuzak]

The secretary that wants to leak the next Enron's machievellian schemes probably isn't going to be able to h4xx0r his way through the protection schemes. 50% secure is 0% secure from hacking from the outside, but still about 50% secure from within.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[ejp1082]

I get so sick of reading this particular lie, time and time again. Consumers have plenty of choice when it comes to artistic works. The fact that you can't obtain freely works that th artist did not release freely has nothing to do with a particular industry "stranglehold" but instead with an artists right to maintain or relinquish control of their creations. If you don't like the way an artist choses to license their work then chose a different artist. If the consumer makes this change then business will need to change their model to survive.

It's not a lie - copyright grants the copyright holder a monopoly on the work in question. So if I want a copy of Star Wars, for example, I have no choice but to get that copy on George Lucas's terms, at the price he sets. I can't (legally) attain Star Wars from another vendor offering it at better quality, with no DRM, or lower price.

The argument that I can go to another artist who offers their works on better terms only goes so far - there's only one Star Wars, and if that's the movie I'm looking for, I have no "choice" in the matter. Copyright law doesn't offer any consumer protections whatsoever, beyond some shrinking fair use rights.

Until very recently, artists who wanted distribution had no option but to agree to the terms set by these companies. They couldn't license the work differently if they wanted to. That's perhaps the worse sin than what goes on on the consumer end - what good is a copyright law that allows actual creators to be robbed of the rights to their work before anyone even has a chance to see it?

Personally, I'd love to say "fuck you" to the RIAA and MPAA and simply go to different artists, as you say - but they control 90% of all the "art" that's created, and almost the entirety of our common culture for most of the 20th century. So there needs to be a retroactive changes to copyright law.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[xero314]

Most of what you wrote is just the usual ratings of someone who was the benefit of another person's hard work without that person receiving compensation for the work.

there's only one Star Wars, and if that's the movie I'm looking for, I have no "choice" in the matter.

No Shit. Just like if you want a Ford, Viagra or any other specific product you have to no "choice", since you already made you "choice" when you chose that product. Oddly enough you don't often hear someone arguing that they should be able to make copies of Impalas to distribute how they see fit (or to make a back up even). But if you notice if you want to make your own products in the same genre you can and administer the rights to it however you want. Make you own space opera if you don't like the way Lucas distributes his.

Until very recently, artists who wanted distribution had no option but to agree to the terms set by these companies.

Another complete lie. Sure when the printing press was first in use people had to follow what ever rules the press owner want to impose on the use of their machine, but seriously that is not what I would consider recent. Not only that there have always been plenty of reproduction and distribution organizations willing to do their particular part with no control or anything other than how something is reproduced or distributed, having nothing to do with how you administer the rights. Just let me know and I can list numerous artists that have independently distributed their own works. Just take Ani Di Franco as an example of someone who set up their own distribution and rights management, include statements about the "necessity" of "copyright infringement" right on her released works.

Personally, I'd love to say "fuck you" to the RIAA and MPAA and simply go to different artists, as you say - but they control 90% of all the "art" that's created...

I think you meant to say "a fraction of a percent of all the 'art' that's created..." Open your eyes and ears and look around, the majority of all art created has no connection with either AA, by unique content, not volume of reproduction, since reproduction and distribution is something the AAs are good at. The fact that you falsely believe that the AAs control 90% of all "art" is a sign of the AAs marketing and has nothing to do with copyright law, or DRM.

So there needs to be a retroactive changes to copyright law.

There is no reason to change or remove a law that can easily be nullified by artists specific licensing. Having the copyright law actually gives our society the greatest amount of freedom by allowing people to determine how free their hard work is.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[OECD]

I get so sick of reading this particular lie, time and time again. Consumers have plenty of choice when it comes to artistic works.

Not when it comes to fair use. Technology doesn't distinguish b/t someone who's trying to copy an entire work and someone who's trying to sample part of it for parody/commentary. I recently did the latter, and was a bit put off that the iTunes episode of BSG I had purchased didn't allow me to copy the frakin 30 second INTRO to make a smart-ass comment about it.

Fine. Whatever. I'm now getting that shit off bittorent, not because I fournd iTunes too expensive, but because the DRM was too onerous.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[drsmithy]

MS has done this twice: (1) adding obscenely restrictive multimedia DRM when the very large majority of their customers do not want it;

The "very large majority" of their customers to be able to download and watch movies, listen to audio, etc. Since they're not going to be able to do this with protected media if the OS *doesn't* support DRM, it's difficult to see how Microsoft are not following their customer's wishes by offering the *choice* of using DRM.

[...] and (2) staying in bed with the hardware manufacturers by failing to control OS-bloat, which forces new computer purchases. It may be that Window's dominant market position is enough to drive this through, for now. Or, it may be that Vista starts a shift to Macintoshes. It's just a matter of time -- no company survives forever by not giving customers what they want.

Your presumption is false. Vista is no more "bloated" than its contemporaries.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[woftam]

Microsoft are laying a foundation for things even they probably dont fully understand or appreciate, but theres no denying where its heading and why. Default operation is not the same as latent capability and over time I think we'll all understand that, most likely after it is too late. Dont get hung up on what things *do* today, look at what they are *capable of doing* tomorrow. Read the referenced articles properly and in full, be informed and if appropriate be alarmed.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[Safety Cap]

Then after productivity grinds to a crawl,

Reminds me of a certain Very Large Oil Company a few years ago, who's IT department (the "cream" of the crop, mind you) decided to lock down the computers to such a degree that word's spell-check wouldn't even run. It took about 3 months for them to figure out

1. that it was a problem, and
2. Then how to fix it.

Needless to say, said Very Large Oil Company was not very efficient and did not need to be; it had enough of the market that "cutting edge" only referred to the paper cuts one risked when filling out the various TPS reports...

Re:I think you misunderstand

[cfulmer]

Well, that's a chicken and egg problem. Let me re-cast it for you to make it more apparent: (1) MS implements restrictions on content duplication and display that, for example, prevent people from using their current widescreen monitors to view hi-def content (no HDMI means deliberately degraded video). (2) Content companies come out with content intended to be used with Microsoft's DRM technology. (3) You say Microsoft is giving customers what they want because their OS allows their customers to watch DRM'd content. You seem to have bought into the content industry line that "We won't distribute our content without these restrictions." That's a bunch of nonsense, about equivalent to "We will shoot ourselves in the head unless you agree to our demands." (I recognize that I'm fudging some details here.)

As to your second point -- exactly what contemporaries are you comparing Vista to? I compare the recommended requirements for Vista with those of XP, then look at the "improvements" Vista gives and wonder what the point is. It's as if MS wants me to buy a new Vista-capable PC so I can do about the same things as I do with my current PC, but with the added "benefit" of DRM.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[xero314]

This could be the end of poverty.

I would like to know how low cost replication is going to end poverty. My assumption is that it will be the same way that all other technological advancements ended poverty. In other words, they have not. Take a look at the poverty levels in countries that do not have copyright or patent laws. I'm all for the eradication of poverty, but I don't see capitalism without protection of creative rights will somehow do it. Removal of protection laws like copyright and patent, within a capitalist society, would only force much higher secrecy and less actual production and advancement. In the case you suggest it would require, before someone released this nano-tech replication system they would need to make sure that it could not be used to replicate itself or be modified to allow it to be replicated, which would add extensively to the time and cost of production. I could get into the whys behind that but I think any intelligent human would understand.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[drsmithy]

Let me re-cast it for you to make it more apparent: (1) MS implements restrictions on content duplication and display that, for example, prevent people from using their current widescreen monitors to view hi-def content (no HDMI means deliberately degraded video). (2) Content companies come out with content intended to be used with Microsoft's DRM technology. (3) You say Microsoft is giving customers what they want because their OS allows their customers to watch DRM'd content.

The options - and this has ZERO to do with Microsoft, because the restrictions are dictated by the content "owners" - are:

* HD video (DRM capable OS and hardware)
* degraded video (DRM capable OS, DRM incapable hardware)
* no video (DRM incapable OS and hardware).

Which do you think the people who want to watch the video are going to prefer ?

Your rage is being directed at the wrong target. You don't seem to understand that there is no "full-quality DRM-encumbered content without DRM capable software and hardware" option (at least until someone cracks it, in which case the whole issue becomes moot). Microsoft (and Apple) are delivering their customers the ability to *choose* whether to watch DRM-encumbered media, or not. A platform without any DRM support at all, does not deliver that choice, because it cannot access DRM encumbered content at all, even in a degraded fashion.

I'll say that again, because it doesn't seem to be sinking in: if your platform doesn't support DRM, you won't be able to access future high-def content at all, because the people producing that content will not allow you to, as is their "right" based on copyright law.

You seem to have bought into the content industry line that "We won't distribute our content without these restrictions." That's a bunch of nonsense, about equivalent to "We will shoot ourselves in the head unless you agree to our demands." (I recognize that I'm fudging some details here.)

I haven't "bought into" anything. The simple fact is the medium term future of media - both video and audio - is that major distribution sources (RIAA, MPAA, et al - and I fully expect game developers to start locking off higher resolutions with DRM as well) are only going to be releasing their "high definition" content in DRM encumbered formats. Thus, the only people who are going to be able to view such media are those with suitably DRM-capable hardware and software. The alternative for such content - as I point out above - is either degraded media or none at all. This is inescapable, it's going to happen no matter how many outraged posts you put on Slashdot or letters you write to your representatives (and the fundamental problem is copyright itself - DRM is just a symptom).

They will be wildly successful, as well, as the vast majority of people will - at least in the short term - notice nothing different or any problems. It's only going to be years after DRM is entrenched, when the content providers really start tightening the screws with enforced pay-per-view and the like, that consumers *might* start revolting (and I say "might" quite seriously - if the economy is performing sufficiently well that disposables incomes are high, it's unlikely they'll care).

Ultimately, the situation (vis-a-vis Microsoft and Vista) is trivially simple to understand (which is presumably why some many on Slashdot try to spread FUD with contrived examples and overcomplicated explanation full of "what ifs"): if you don't want DRM-encumbered media, don't buy it. Do this and you'll never even know it exists.

As to your second point -- exactly what contemporaries are you comparing Vista to?

OS X and certain configurations of Linux (although it's hard to argue "Linux" is at feature parity, given the flakiness of its various "3D accelerated" layers like Beryl, et al).

Vista runs usably on hardware up to about 6-7 years old, perhaps requiring a memory and/or video card upgrade to

Re:I think you misunderstand

[arifirefox]

you don't need star wars. Really, you don't. If star wars cost $2000 I can't afford that. So I just don't buy it and won't miss it. DRM is another cost, just not expressed in dollars and cents. If it's too much for you then you don't have it. You have no right to tell artists what they should do with their work. What will happen is they will simply not produce anything. So either way you won't get star wars.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[cfulmer]

So, we have a disagreement over the bolded part of your post. I understand how the DRM stuff is intended to work: the owners of the hi-def patents claim that they will only license them to people who implement the full DRM suite. Content owners enter into agreements with the patent owners that require the patent owners to enforce those restrictions. So, for example, if anybody comes along with, say, a blue-ray player that allows the content to be copied, the owners of the blue-ray patents will sue the manufacturer either for patent infringement or breach of contract. (The content owners have a DMCA circumvention claim as well.)

The point, though, is that the bargain does not need to be made. If Microsoft had effectively said "Go to H*ll. We're not accepting that deal because it's not what our customers want," the content owners would have been forced to back down from their "my way or the highway" position and would have accepted a somewhat less restrictive position. After all, they need platforms so they can sell their HD content.

As far as your second point--if I don't see a purpose for Vista, I don't need to buy it--I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, I will be forced to buy it at some point as MS will just stop supporting XP and I'll be at risk for the next IE-hack that comes along.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[oohshiny]

you don't need star wars. Really, you don't.

Yes, you do. Star Wars may be a lousy movie, but it's part of our culture. If you don't know it, there's a lot of stuff you can't do.

You have no right to tell artists what they should do with their work.

It isn't "their work", it is everybody's work. Content creators are simply given a temporary monopoly by the government.

What will happen is they will simply not produce anything. So either way you won't get star wars.

I think it would be great if people didn't have an incentive to create junk like Star Wars--and make no mistake about it, Star Wars is simply the product of a money making machinery with little artistic or cultural value. But given that it's out there and has become part of our culture, we all have to know about it, whether we like it or not.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[mr_death]

oohshiney says: "All your bases/content/culture belong to us".

I suggest that oohshiney will change his or her tune when he actually owns or creates something.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[tbannist]

He's right though. The original intention of copyright law was to allow an artist to profit from his work, not to guarantee perpetual ownership of all art.

It's right there in the name. It's called copyright because it's the right to make copies of a work. It was a direct consequence of the invention of the printing press and the sudden ability to make cheap copies of books. Suddenly someone could spend years writing a book, and someone else could take that book and sell 100,000 copies for just over the cost of the book's materials. The author would get nothing from his suddenly popular book. Heck, the printer didn't even have to leave the author's name on the book.

The idea that ideas, images, and words could be actual property didn't come along until relatively recently, and the issue isn't resolved at all. It is still being determined (fought even) in legislation and litigation.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[mr_death]

Perpetual ownership? Absolutely not. The Constitution says in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Sadly, copyright extensions are passed early and often -- due to the influence of the movie and music companies.

In my original response, I questioned oohshiny's claim that Star Wars (or any other work) belongs to everyone. These works will pass to the public when the copyright period expires. oohshiny seems to think that it belongs to everyone right now.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[oohshiny]

In my original response, I questioned oohshiny's claim that Star Wars (or any other work) belongs to everyone. These works will pass to the public when the copyright period expires. oohshiny seems to think that it belongs to everyone right now.

Where you are wrong is simply that you misconstrue copyright as ownership. A copyright is merely a specific monopoly, granted to you by the government in exchange for publication; it is not "ownership".

I suggest that oohshiney will change his or her tune when he actually owns or creates something.

I have created a large number of copyrighted and patented works, and I enforce my rights. But I understand that neither copyrights nor patents amount to "ownership".

(Also, as a matter of public policy, I think both copyright and patent terms should be greatly reduced for everybody.)

Re:I think you misunderstand

[megaditto]

Why do you say things you KNOW are not true?

iTunes DOES allow you to copy a segment of the track! Connect the mixer console to your Mac or iPod AUDIOOUT, and fair-use away! Mix, match, reverse, add effects, whatever.

What the iTunes drm DOES NOT let you do easily is "sharing" a complete unprotected digital copy of the song with your "friends" on Gnutella.

Once again, iTunes DRM makes fair use EASY, and piracy HARDER. So, why do you bother inventing this fair-use-restriction FUD to justify stealing music? Makes you sleep better at night? Makes you feel like a good person and not a low-life thief, coward, and a liar?

God help you, man.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[arifirefox]

I know people who don't know anything about Star Wars and they are perfectly fine. :)
"It isn't "their work", it is everybody's work. Content creators are simply given a temporary monopoly by the government."
One could say that the government gives a temporary monopoly to anything you have. That money you think you have? Comes from the government. That doesn't mean everyone else has the right to take it from you.
"I think it would be great if people didn't have an incentive to create junk like Star Wars--and make no mistake about it, Star Wars is simply the product of a money making machinery with little artistic or cultural value. But given that it's out there and has become part of our culture, we all have to know about it, whether we like it or not."
From a cultural, artistic standpoint it is junk. I think it's just fun entertainment and shouldn't be placed in the same lofty category with Shakespeare and Mozart. That's real culture and works of similar caliber simply won't be DRM candidates in the first place.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[oohshiny]

One could say that the government gives a temporary monopoly to anything you have.

No, one could not say that: the Constitution recognizes ownership of physical property, it does not recognize ownership of ideas. The government cannot arbitrarily limit your ownership of physical property to a certain period, but it can limit the temporary monopoly it gives you on exploiting your ideas.

I know people who don't know anything about Star Wars and they are perfectly fine. :)

No, they are not. They are out of touch with a common element of our culture, and they are as deficient as people with a limited vocabulary.

That's real culture and works of similar caliber simply won't be DRM candidates in the first place.

That's absolutely not true: the Criterion collection DVDs are just as locked up as the Star Wars DVDs.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[masdog]

He's talking about video, not audio. As far as I can tell, iTunes has no work-around for copying a segment of video.

At least with the audio, you can burn it to a CD.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[masdog]

No, one could not say that: the Constitution recognizes ownership of physical property, it does not recognize ownership of ideas. The government cannot arbitrarily limit your ownership of physical property to a certain period, but it can limit the temporary monopoly it gives you on exploiting your ideas.

Well, case law and contract law disagree with you. There are cases of companies "owning" the ideas of their employees.

As for what the Constitution recognizes, it does indeed recognize ownership of ideas. From Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Exclusive right...sounds an awful lot like ownership.

No, they are not. They are out of touch with a common element of our culture, and they are as deficient as people with a limited vocabulary.
Hey slapnuts...this is why you can't get laid. There is more to life, and our culture, than a low-budget cult-classic from the 1970s.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[oohshiny]

Exclusive right...sounds an awful lot like ownership.

Well, very superficially, you might think that, but it isn't ownership, it is, as it says, an "exclusive right" "for limited times".

Well, case law and contract law disagree with you. There are cases of companies "owning" the ideas of their employees.

They don't disagree with me at all. Companies do not own ideas any more than inventors do; what they own is patents and copyrights.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[ivan256]

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.

I can smell that pile of crap from all the way over here.

There is a feature that you forgot to mention that currently does not exist in DRM free environments. Your new DRM order will allow verifiable fee payments to microsoft for every device participating in document lifecycle. Hardware purchase requirements will eliminate the possibility of mitigating these requirements through bulk licensing for all but the largest of corporate customers (strike one). The longevity of legacy systems up to ten times longer than Microsoft's best hopes will require exploitable concessions to be made in the "security" in order to get the technology in the door. Easily breakable DRM (before any of the inevitable flaws are found) means zero cost-benefit (strike two). Administrative and bureaucratic costs of technical (and thus actual) enforcement of such policies will be so high in both lost productivity and increased management requirements will either cause the technology to be rejected, or protections to be disabled leading to the solutions being useless (strike three).

Additionally, despite the ubiquity of Microsoft Office, it is not the cornerstone application of most businesses. Microsoft is incapable of providing top-to-bottom DRM because they don't play in vertical software markets (and have failed spectacularly at every attempt, though they may have partial success in the mobile phone market in the next decade). Unless you are a lawyer, document processing is not your business' bread and butter. Custom, or industry specific database applications are king.

If OO wants to be relevant in 2 years it will have to have it in a year from now.

Anybody sane only considers OO a stop-gap between now and the end of the monolithic document suite. They don't need to innovate or advance any. They just need to polish so they can be relevant for the transition. It'll be irrelevant in a few years either way.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[ivan256]

Then the invoice will come, and the CFO will set them straight.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[bensch128]

By that point, it'll be too late and the M$ software will be already setup and installed.
I wonder if M$ offers refunds?

Just remember kids, the first sample is always free. (or in this case, cheap) ;)

Cheers
Ben

Don't listen to the FUD

[Sycraft-fu]

Sounds to me like you've gotten caught up in the anti-Vista FUD machine. There's aren't evil DRM gremlins in Vista that are going to try to screw you over and mess with your media. All the DRM stuff is of no consequence if you don't choose to use it. Old apps run fine, I've used Sony Vegas at work and it works as it always does (well, you have to screw around to get it to install since it checks for .NET 1.1). There's no problem importing and messing with un-DRM'd audio and video.

So you can continue to use DRM free tools to your heart's content. The only time you need to start worrying about it is if you want to release content that's protected using the new DRM. Then you'll need to consider what tools you'll need to get for that, what restrictions it'll place on you, etc.

However you needn't worry about an evil gremlin applying DRM to your files while you sleep. Gutmann is just one of the many out there that dislike MS and are spreading FUD related to Vista. It may indeed be true that the DRM'd media files will suck and be low quality, however if you just don't use them then you'll never have to care.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[Maxo-Texas]

Yes and no.

If a product doesn't support DRM then Vista may not allow it as a valid application (and can in fact remove the ability of applications to run *after* the fact when they are identified as a problem.)

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.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[Stephen Samuel]

The problem with Vista isn't that it will mess with your unprotectd media, but rather that it might mess with your unprotected media, and when and why that happens cannot always be that predictable or the DRM features that MS has been touting to the big media producers (and being coy about when talking to consumers) will be too easy to break.

This problem will be especially pronounced for professional content creators because they're going to have a higher than normal probability of needing to (legitimately) work with protected content -- whether it's their own or somebody else's. Again, this is very unlikely to always happen, but it doesn't take that many 'unfortunate coincidences' to turn your average high-strung artist into a paranoid schizophrenic.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[mabinogi]

No, you're making stuff up.

Show some evidence if you're not.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[Steppman2]

Another good example of DRM being harmful even if you don't enable it actually occurred today in Windows XP on my sister's computer...Apparently the "copy protect content" checkbox in WMP9/WMP10 is automatically checked on install, she'd been ripping all her CD's DRM'ed without even knowing it. Since then she's lost most of the CD's but she was careful to keep a backup of all the music from her hard drive, unfortunately for her, her hard drive died yesterday and when she reinstalled Windows all her licenses were gone, leaving her with about 30gb of useless data carefully preserved on an external drive. Needless to say she was devastated as much of it was content she couldn't get back, just because you can disable DRM doesn't mean it's not dangerous.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[Nightspirit]

It's ridiculous. Slashdot is supposed to be full of IT competent people, yet most of them cant even understand simple concepts. Heck, I'm barely competent in IT, yet I understand how DRM is implemented in vista and the difference between different versions of Vista, yet I keep hearing this FUD. It's like I'm reading posts from people typing on a 486 using a 10 year old version of slackware.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[thejeffer]

Where the hell are you getting this "it might mess with your unprotected media" crap. If your media is unprotected, you can use whatever media player you want to play it, and Vista won't care one little bit. If there's no DRM on the file, Vista DOES NOT MESS WITH IT. Period. End of story. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, quit spreading this FUD.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[Grym]

Why do people keep insisting that hardware-enforced DRM (like Vista's) is somehow optional, like Active Desktop or ClearType fonts? IT IS NOT.

Now, I don't expect the OP to read the technical documents behind Vista's "premium content protection" methods and I don't even expect him to read the expert analysis he references on the subject, but for God's sakes, I can't believe he's acting as if he's somehow informed on the matter when he says things like:

There's aren't evil DRM gremlins in Vista that are going to try to screw you over and mess with your media... you needn't worry about an evil gremlin applying DRM to your files while you sleep. Gutmann is just one of the many out there that dislike MS and are spreading FUD related to Vista.

This is a complete strawman argument. Nobody knowledgeable on the matter has ever claimed this. I specifically implore anyone to find me where Dr. Gutman ever claimed that DRM would be applied to non-DRM files. This mis-characterization of the opposition is academically dishonest in every sense of the phrase.

Old apps run fine,

This is not true. Not even MICROSOFT is saying that. In fact, here's what they have to say about it: "We have made tremendous investments in Windows Vista to ensure backwards compatibility, but some of the system enhancements, such as User Access Control, changes to the networking stack, and the new graphics model, may require code changes on your part. You should work hard to run as standard user." (emphasis mine)

It may indeed be true that the DRM'd media files will suck and be low quality, however if you just don't use them then you'll never have to care.

The fact that the vast majority of hardware you'll be able to buy (regardless of DRM or OS) will be more expensive, less reliable, slower, and fundamentally vulnerable to DDOS attacks is of no concern to you? Well I guess as long as it looks pretty, why should you care, right?

-Grym

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[man_of_mr_e]

Apparently the "copy protect content" checkbox in WMP9/WMP10 is automatically checked on install

"Apparently"? No, it's not. It is off by default. She must have checked it when she set it up.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

If a product doesn't support DRM then Vista may not allow it as a valid application (and can in fact remove the ability of applications to run *after* the fact when they are identified as a problem.)

What the hell are you talking about? There is no such revocation system in Vista - the only thing close is the fact that drivers must be signed in the x64 version.

Microsoft could certainly push an upgrade that breaks applications explicitly, but this would be blatantly anticompetitive.

FairUse4WM works fine in Vista, as does nearly every DRM circumvention program that I've tried.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[Grym]

If there's no DRM on the file, Vista DOES NOT MESS WITH IT. Period. End of story. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, quit spreading this FUD.

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:

Alongside the all-or-nothing approach of disabling output, Vista requires that any interface that provides high-quality output degrade the signal quality that passes through it if premium content is present. This is done through a "constrictor" that downgrades the signal to a much lower-quality one, then up- scales it again back to the original spec, but with a significant loss in quality. So if you're using an expensive new LCD display fed from a high- quality DVI signal on your video card and there's protected content present, the picture you're going to see will be, as the spec puts it, "slightly fuzzy", a bit like a 10-year-old CRT monitor that you picked up for $2 at a yard sale...

The same deliberate degrading of playback quality applies to audio, with the audio being downgraded to sound (from the spec) "fuzzy with less detail" [Note G]...

Beyond the obvious playback-quality implications of deliberately degraded output, this measure can have serious repercussions in applications where high-quality reproduction of content is vital. For example the field of medical imaging either bans outright or strongly frowns on any form of lossy compression because artifacts introduced by the compression process can cause mis-diagnoses and in extreme cases even become life-threatening. Consider a medical IT worker who's using a medical imaging PC while listening to audio/video played back by the computer (the CDROM drives installed in workplace PCs inevitably spend most of their working lives playing music or MP3 CDs to drown out workplace noise). If there's any premium content present in there, the image will be subtly altered by Vista's content protection, potentially creating exactly the life-threatening situation that the medical industry has worked so hard to avoid. The scary thing is that there's no easy way around this - Vista will silently modify displayed content under certain (almost impossible-to-predict in advance) situations discernable only to Vista's built-in content-protection subsystem [Note H].

-Grym

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[kripkenstein]

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.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[Grym]

No, it's not. The reason is that Guttman and others ALWAYS neglect to mention that unprotected content will NEVER suffer from anything they're talking about. Why is that? Why do they neglect to mention this? It's simply, don't want DRM, don't buy protected content.

You act as if software is going to advertise the fact that it has DRMed content in it AND that DRM will be limited to discrete media like movies and songs. What, in this world obsessed with "intellectual property", would ever make you think this?

Once the platform for content protection is established and accepted, there is EVERY reason to believe that DRM will be extended onto other copyrighted works--things like clipart, splash videos, GUI designs, fonts, PDF documents, and so on. And if ANY of this DRM-encumbered media is being (dis)played while non-DRM media is also being (dis)played, the quality of the non-DRMed content will be degraded as well.

Vista is *NOT* more expensive, nor has it been proven to be less reliable, and most independant tests say that Vista is just as fast (sometimes faster) than XP. Finally, your "fundamentally vulnerable to DDOS attacks" claim is paranoid lunacy with nothing backing it up. Pure FUD. That's all you can come up with?

Actually bothering to read the things you quote never hurts. All of those descriptors were in reference to the HARDWARE that will inevitably be designed around Microsoft's asinine specifications, regardless of whether you actually use/own DRMed content or Windows OS at all.

-Grym

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[man_of_mr_e]

You act as if software is going to advertise the fact that it has DRMed content in it AND that DRM will be limited to discrete media like movies and songs.

Once the platform for content protection is established and accepted, there is EVERY reason to believe that DRM will be extended onto other copyrighted works--things like clipart, splash videos, GUI designs, fonts, PDF documents, and so on. And if ANY of this DRM-encumbered media is being (dis)played while non-DRM media is also being (dis)played, the quality of the non-DRMed content will be degraded as well.

Do you REALLY think the public will stand for that? No. They won't. If this is a real problem, rather than the theoretical slippery slope you are getting excited about, then it will be solved, or consumers will start lawsuits.

The key here is that the content providers and the hardware providers are promising a certain level of quality, and if that quality is impossible to get, lawsuits will fly. But again, you can avoid all this by not buying protected content. And Yes. It will be labeled. AACS, for instance, requires the AACS logo on all protected content.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[Deviate_X]

No. You are wrong. Playback and Editing of normal non-drm music files mp3,wav,aac and even wma is unaffected by Vista's "DRM Protection" schemes.

"This DRM only affects the playback of next-generation DVDs; which isn't a real problem for anyone quite yet: players cost $1,000 at the moment and there's next to no content available for them." - Andrew Orlowski (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/28/vista_drm _analysis/)

This discussion is funny because we have anti-DRM people (Slashdot) complaining about the Playback quality of a DRM system which requires you to BUY DRM in the first instance.

If you don't want DRM system to interfere with your system - DON'T BUY DRM'ed files or hardware (HD-DVD and BlueRay). That is the best way to kill this kind of extreme DRM non-sense.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[jez9999]

I'm as anti-DRM as the best of them, but this sounds a bit weird. Why would they bother sending you high-quality content just so Vista could degrade it? Wouldn't they just send you crap quality content in the first place (jokes about most Hollywood/RIAA content being crap anyway aside)?

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[Selanit]

If you take the time to read Gutmann's actual analysis, rather than just the summary on the Inquirer, you'll note that he gives several reasons to object to Vista's DRM requirements even if you never use a single DRM-protected file. For example:

The specs for DRM support in Vista specify that the OS has to encrypt any protected video data sent to the video card. "Ah HA," you say. "I'll just never use any protected video." Fair enough. But consider this: in the future, any new video card you buy will have to be capable of decrypting stuff even if you yourself never send it any encrypted content. That means that the company that makes the video card has to integrate cryptography capabilities into the video card. Which requires space on the video card's circuit board. That same circuit board space could have been, say, another pixel pipeline or two for faster video rendering - oh well. Congratulations, you're getting less bang for the same buck.

Except, of course, it's NOT the same buck; it's more buck. Integrating cryptography into a video card will require expertise (expensive), development (expensive), and testing (expensive). And naturally, some cryptography technologies are covered by patents, so the video card company will have to purchase more patent licenses (expensive). Guess who's going to wind up footing the bill for these new expenses? That's right: you, the end user.

Some of the patent expenses can probably be reduced. nVidia has patents of its own, as does ATI, and SGI for that matter. They can offer to swap patent permissions with companies who hold patents for cryptographic technology. (Assuming that the cryptography companies have any interest in graphics patents.) What's that you say? You're a small company? You don't have a massive portfolio of patents to bargain with? And your budget is limited? Sorry, friend, you're in the wrong line of work. Try McDonald's, I hear they need highly-skilled cash-register operators. (Not that there are very many small upstart video-card companies; breaking into that market is damn hard. Throwing in all this DRM stuff just makes the impossible a teensy bit harder.)

Slower development times, higher hardware costs, decreased competition ... all those affect you even if you never sully your system with a DRM-protected file. And that's just scratching the surface. Open source drivers are going to get harder to write; the DRM spec breaks Microsoft's own unified driver scheme, requiring a completely unique driver for every possible variant of every possible device; massively increases the required system specs; decreases system reliability; and on and on. It doesn't even do a damn bit of good in the long run; all it takes is one bright hacker with a compiler (and possibly a soldering gun) to figure out some way around it. One compromised system means that Hollywood's precious copies of Soccer Dog: the Movie will be smeared all over the net. And meanwhile, the rest of us poor schmucks will be paying more for hardware that does less. Great.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not true. Not even MICROSOFT is saying that. In fact, here's what they [microsoft.com] have to say about it: "We have made tremendous investments in Windows Vista to ensure backwards compatibility, but some of the system enhancements, such as User Access Control, changes to the networking stack, and the new graphics model, may require code changes on your part. You should work hard to run as standard user." (emphasis mine)

I work on the App Compat team at MS. The things that we block apps for have nothing, to the best of my knowledge (and I'm very close to the issue, I've never seen anything suspicious like this) to do with DRM. We block apps that fail on a platform when we can't reasonably shim them to make them work. When we block an app, we also contact the vendor to tell them why, tell them what causes the crash and why, and we invite vendors in to our labs to help them fix stuff that's broken- and when they release an update, the binary signature no longer matches and the block no longer applies.
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 .exe and a couple/few of its linked/dependent assemblies) and the block no longer applies.
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.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[bsane]

but this would be blatantly anticompetitive.

Whew!! For a minute there I thought MS may actually do something like that!

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[mblase]

Except, of course, it's NOT the same buck; it's more buck. Integrating cryptography into a video card will require expertise (expensive), development (expensive), and testing (expensive). And naturally, some cryptography technologies are covered by patents, so the video card company will have to purchase more patent licenses (expensive). Guess who's going to wind up footing the bill for these new expenses? That's right: you, the end user.

But it doesn't actually affect the playback of unprotected media, does it? Which is all the original poster is asking about.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[bealzabobs_youruncle]

Actually bothering to read the things you quote never hurts. All of those descriptors were in reference to the HARDWARE that will inevitably be designed around Microsoft's asinine specifications, regardless of whether you actually use/own DRMed content or Windows OS at all. Now you are just making stuff up; recent test from PCWorld, CNET and anyone who was in the BETA pretty much shows this. Any decent single core or dual core PC from the last couple years will provide a performance experience equal to XP in the vast majority of task.

You should stop spreading FUD.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[metamatic]

Needless to say she was devastated as much of it was content she couldn't get back, just because you can disable DRM doesn't mean it's not dangerous.

But she's going to keep on using Windows, right?

She's "devastated". Just not enough to actually do anything.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[gfxguy]

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.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[larkost]

For print production Macintosh still has a large advantage: color correction. Adobe has tried mighily to get Windows close, but it is still far simpler and more reliable on Macs. Color accuracy is not a big deal in video production because your end-consumer has nothing color corrected.

And recently Apple has made large inroads in TV productions (an area they traditionally have not had a large following) with FinalCut Pro, especially where editors want to do their work in the field. The leader on this has been evening news shows.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[Maxo-Texas]

It doesn't matter if it works now.

They can revoke a program's right to run with Vista.

They may choose not to do so for a few years but the capability is now there.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[Ben Hutchings]

To elaborate: one possibility in 'Trusted Computing' is to disallow certain programs from being run.

Virus checkers have done and will continue to do that but we know it's entirely possible to work around them. AFAIK the revocation features in DRM systems do not work by black-listing applications but by removing them from a white-list. (The DRM controller generates all the keys expected to be needed in advance and includes them all in the initial white-list.) That doesn't prevent a "revoked" application from running and performing operations that don't involve the DRM system.

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?).

Exactly their response to FairUse4WM. DRM is far too important to wait for Patch Tuesday!

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[yabos]

It's all fine and dandy to say don't buy HD-DVD/Blueray hardware or disks but you'll eventually have to do it since that's all that will be out there. Ripped disks will probably become available not long after and are here already if you believe the HD-DVD has been cracked. The only downside being the size of the files which are 20+GB per disk.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[Mondoz]

Read what he wrote again. He's talking about future Vista-compliant hardware.
See?

"HARDWARE that will inevitably be designed around Microsoft's asinine specifications"

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[Mondoz]

"Do you REALLY think the public will stand for that? No. They won't. If this is a real problem, rather than the theoretical slippery slope you are getting excited about, then it will be solved, or consumers will start lawsuits."

You're right. They won't stand for it. (At least, the ones who actually have a clue that it's happening...) They might get involved in long, expensive lawsuits to get rid of this restriction. MS will claim that it's an essential part of the entire OS, and impossible to remove.
Along the way, someone might figure out a way and show it to them. They might go to jail for doing so, though.
A judge might give MS a year or two to remove it themselves, and by the time Vista's successor comes around, they might have a patch for it.
Either way, it'll be that way for years...

That's just a pessimistic view of the situation. It would certainly be handled better than this.
Crap. I forget, which 'essential' feature of Windows are we talking about again, because this sounds awfully familiar...

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

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.

Such a feature has been available in XP since (at least) SP2. I'm sure that there are Kernel modules that disallow running certain programs by hash.

But these "protections" ultimately don't work very well. It doesn't take much to drastically alter the object code of a compiled program.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[bar-agent]

Unless she got rid of the CD's -- because they were all on the computer.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[Reziac]

On somewhat the same tack, I offer this exchange between myself: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=213318&cid=173 58732

and NewYorkCountryLawyer: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=213318&cid=173 60250

the gist of which was "If the RIAA wins now, next target Microsoft... now with deeper pockets!" and "Yeah... and next, The Internet."

Businesses have been demanding lockdowns for years, but one also has to wonder how much of Vista's DRM handling is, at root, lawsuit-dodging.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[Reziac]

Consider that the present legal default is "everything someone creates is automatically copyrighted".

Given that, the "legally responsible" way for the DRM-conscious OS to respond is "All content is assumed to be copyrighted, therefore all use is assumed to be infringement until proven otherwise," and for the OS to accordingly lock down everything you don't have a key for.

Imagine if every piece of clipart required a key before you could use it... ... on second thought, that might reduce website clutter :)

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[Stephen Samuel]

Well, if you're lucky enough to have all of your hardware be DRM compliant (this is a bit more likely to happen in the far future), then (if everything else lines up right -- and you've paid the extra per-view fees that the big content holders are hoping to be able to charge you, one day soon --), you can at least hope to have the high quality media that you paid gazillions of dollars for display in high quality format.

In the meantime, just resign yourself to the fact that you've been hosed -- and will continue to be hosed in the forseable future.

Remember that what you hear from the marketing people, what they actually mean, and what you actually receive can often be subtly (or even drastically) different.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[Maxo-Texas]

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/mediacenter/eva luation/privacy/mcevistaprivacy.mspx ...A list of revoked software can be sent to your computer whenever you download a new Program Guide...

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[yagisencho]

If she got rid of the CDs (as in sold), she didn't have the right to keep the ripped copies in the first place. If she'd purchased DRM'd music downloads, lost the files in a hardware failure, and then had no way to retrieve the files, she might have some ground to stand on. When I lost 400 albums to a hard disk failure, I spent a month re-ripping them from CD (and stored them on a RAID 1 array this time). I lost time, but not my music collection.

Re:Don't listen to the FUD

[bar-agent]

If she got rid of the CDs (as in sold), she didn't have the right to keep the ripped copies in the first place.

WTF are you talking about? CDs aren't sold with a license! If she bought the CD, she can rip and re-sell it all she wants. Copyright law only says that she can't do public performances; selling the CD does not count.

Anyway, I meant "get rid of" as in "threw away."

News Flash

[jfclavette]

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.

If you want to spread FUD, at least don't make up EVERYTHING.

Re:News Flash

[rucs_hack]

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.

Re:News Flash

[Martz]

Thats all very well, but Microsoft give you that option.

The problem is - Microsoft have the ability with Vista to define what options and freedoms you have with your own PC, and can change this at some point in the future. Its dynamic and likely to change once it's been accepted by the masses.

Re:News Flash

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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?

Re:News Flash

[jb.hl.com]

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.

BZZT. Wrong. It gives you a choice between adding DRM and not adding DRM, in a clear dialog box the moment you try to rip a CD for the first time. I will screenshot this if you like, considering that most people who criticise WMP haven't used it for years.

Re:News Flash

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Congratulations. There's always some smart-ass who thinks that his slashdot dick is bigger because he can take a quote, remove the context and then dispute a point that was addressed in the context.

Since anyone can click "parent" on your post and get the original context, I'm not going to bother to quote myself just to reinsert the sentence you left out. Instead, I'll go one further and let microsoft's own FAQ demonstrate my point:

Microsoft MediaPlayer FAQ
Q: How do I turn off copy protection when ripping music from a CD?
A: It isn't possible to remove protection from files you have already ripped, but you can prevent files from being protected the next time you rip music from a CD. In addition, you can replace the existing protected files by ripping the CD again.

1. On the Tools menu, click Options, and then click the Rip music tab.
2. Clear the Copy protect music check box. Files that you rip in the future will not be copy-protected.

Clearly, at the time the FAQ was written, DRM was the default, else there would not have been a FAQ about how to make it not the default.

Re:News Flash

[SEMW]

I don't know about number 3, but 1 and 2 were a fact of life with Sony's minidisc players. You could only access the device with the supplied software, ironically called OpenMG Jukebox (which incidentally was orange and purple, had been quite blatently translated from Japanese by a non native speaker of English, and had the worst interface of any application I have ever used before or since). Music copied to the minidisc was converted to ATRAC3 format, and could not be copied back to the computer, ever -- even the exact same computer that had just copied the music onto it. I bought an iPod a few months later, it was that awful.

Re:News Flash

[rucs_hack]

Odd isn't it, that a device meant to render music enjoyment even more convenient and portable should be so very bad. I heard about that sony player, but never got one. I've not yet seen a Zune, other than in adverts where it is 'sponsoring' events. Even so, I don't see microsoft as being geared towards ease of use. the iPod and iTunes seems to be the only combination of player/software which is considerate of the needs of the end user.

Not that iTunes is perfect, but it's still good.

Re:News Flash

[gfxguy]

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.

Re:News Flash

[amliebsch]

It doesn't matter if the source was originally infected or totally clean - if you Zune it, it gets DRM.

You are just one of countless others on here spreading this FUD about the Zune. The fact is the restrictions are entirely client-based. The MP3 that you send wirelessly is identical to the source file. No DRM or anything is "added" to the file.

Re:News Flash

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You are just one of countless others on here spreading this FUD about the Zune. The fact is the restrictions are entirely client-based. The MP3 that you send wirelessly is identical to the source file. No DRM or anything is "added" to the file.

As if there is a difference.

Receive an mp3 wirelessly on a Zune and it is for all intents and purposes infected with DRM - you can't wirelessly share it with anyone else, you can't copy it out and you can't play it more than 3 times or after 3 days have passed.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.

DRM doing what it's supposed to do

[PurifyYourMind]

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, but companies who actually have to compete, and offer real value to their customers to create an alternative get shafted. I guess it's time to popularize the super open formats with average users so we can sidestep this lock down nonsense.

Just use a Mac...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a long time ac hater, I now have one. It works great for these things.

Do you need to upgrade?

[Mogster]

You say you are using Win2k and Linux, however you don't state any reasons as to why you need to move to Vista.
As the old saying goes: If it ain't broke don't fix.

Re:Do you need to upgrade?

[robyannetta]

You say you are using Win2k and Linux, however you don't state any reasons as to why you need to move to Vista. As the old saying goes: If it ain't broke don't fix.

I agree. By CHOICE, I'm still running one Windows 2000 box just to run a few applications. The rest of my boxes run Linux (One Solaris box is the exception).

I've heard a lot of negatives here on /. about Vista, but no positives yet. But the only thing that I know is that I have a good setup here, so why change it?

I'm a filmmaker and release all my films free to the public without DRM, under a Creative Commons licence. I have absolutely no need to buy a new, expensive box just to run an expensive Operating System just so my rights could be limited by some megaopoly just because don't trust their own customers. Eff that. Linux forever.

Re:Do you need to upgrade?

[knorthern knight]

> By CHOICE, I'm still running one Windows 2000 box just to run a few applications.

http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=1990

Update: It has been brought to our attention that Microsoft Windows Defender is no longer intallable or supported for Windows 2000. Microsoft states that W2K is out of lifecycle and is no longer supported. So those of you running Windows Defender on Windows 2000, you will need to look for another program.

I thought everything was Opt-in ...

[figleaf]

and there is no effect on content which is doesn't require provider authorization.

Is this a new feature?
Vista can playback a music file with reduced quality if you don't have rights to it.
I can find no reference to such a feature on Microsoft site. Please post relevant links.

Previous operating systems completely denied music playback if you didn't have rights.
Its actually super cool if you now actually play non-authorized files, albeit with reduced quality. /.

Re:I thought everything was Opt-in ...

[darkonc]

and there is usually no effect on content which is doesn't require provider authorization.

Unfortunately, there may also be situations in which a driver isn't able to prove that it's got clean media and will, therefore set a 'trouble bit' to indicate that it's 'worried'. This can cause the degradation of the affected media, whether it's properly DRMed or not.

Part of the problem is that secure DRM is going to essentially require that every step in the chain can prove that it's handling the data correctly. According to at least one document, issues of uncertainty are to be resolved by presuming the worst (that someone is attempting to game the system). Under such uncertain conditions, loss of quality is a serious possibility -- whether the data being processed really is protected or not.

A really bad case might be a compressed or encrypted backup data stream causing a media device to think that it's getting 'cracked' DRM media. The device 'degrades' the "media", resulting in the irreversible scrambling of your backup. Something like that may be rare, but it only has to happen once or twice to critical data for a company to get a really sour taste in their mouth.

Re:I thought everything was Opt-in ...

[Helldesk Hound]

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_c ost.txt

Read that and prepare to be surprised to the extent that MS has gone to implement DRM.

No part of Microsoft's Digital Restrictions Management is "opt-in".

Vista is a dog. :o(

Re:I thought everything was Opt-in ...

[thelamecamel]

If you're playing a "premium" audio or video file (or Windows thinks you're playing a premium audio or video file) in the background at the same time as you're working with your own audio or video files, and your hardware doesn't support HDCP in the way Windows wants, then the overall system sound and/or video quality will be affected - e.g. your screen will be made fuzzy intentionally. Here's a link: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_c ost.txt

Re:I thought everything was Opt-in ...

[reub2000]

Your forgetting one thing: Microsoft wants to sell as many of copies of it's software as possible in order to make as much dough as it can. Such a crippling would turn away media professionals from buying Vista.

Re:I thought everything was Opt-in ...

[man_of_mr_e]

Unfortunately, there may also be situations in which a driver isn't able to prove that it's got clean media and will, therefore set a 'trouble bit' to indicate that it's 'worried'. This can cause the degradation of the affected media, whether it's properly DRMed or not.

False. Completely and totally false. and FUD.

Things like "worry bits" and degradation cannot and do not happen unless you are using a protected media path that has been turned on by the media. Without DRM, there is no DRM, thus there is no degradation. Period.

Part of the problem is that secure DRM is going to essentially require that every step in the chain can prove that it's handling the data correctly

Yes, so don't use DRM'd content, and secure DRM channels will never be set up. Don't buy the content if you don't like the protection, period.

According to at least one document, issues of uncertainty are to be resolved by presuming the worst

Yes, *IF* a secure channel has been set up by the protected media, and only *IF* that is the case.

Under such uncertain conditions, loss of quality is a serious possibility -- whether the data being processed really is protected or not.

Wrong. False. FUD.

There is nowhere, in any of the documents, that any of these concerns apply to anything other than a secure DRM channel established by protected content. Stop making shit up just to spread FUD.

Re:I thought everything was Opt-in ...

[Overzeetop]

I actually made it through part of that. I started skimming when I hit a "variable" level of input degradation on fadein/fadeout of protected music.

I call bullshit. Inputs will be on or off, if chaged at all. Nothing in the middle based on volume of an audio sample or black-level of video sample.

As for the "tilt-bit", I'm hightly skeptical. The need to "detect" a hacking attempt and shut down the hardware will cause widespread failures in most consumer level boxes produced. Vendors will see five-fold CS support call volumes, doubling of hardware costs, and general dissatisfaction by their consumers and will start throwing chairs at Steve Ballmer.

You may not think vendors have much sway in Redmond, but I guarantee you if their (razor thin) bottom lines are threatened, they will make Microsoft toe the line.

Re:I thought everything was Opt-in ...

[bensch128]

Yes, *IF* a secure channel has been set up by the protected media, and only *IF* that is the case.

That's the problem, it's impossible to tell when Vista is going to degradate the media channels because the logic is deeply ingrained inside the Vista kernel. And there's NO way to disable it, period! So would you want to trust it not to f**k you at the wrong time?

I wouldn't and that's why I don't use Windows for my main OS anymore...

Cheers
Ben

Re:I thought everything was Opt-in ...

[darkonc]

Microsoft is already selling as many copies of it's software as possible. It's very difficult for most people to get a commodity Intel box from most retailers these days (especially the larger ones) without getting Windows -- whether that's what they want or not.

Of course, it doesn't hurt that most people don't even know to ask for anything else, but for even those that do know better, the lack of an option is a reasonable barrier.

In the meantime, most people who go to Linux because Windows is a consumer's nightmare are going to be like the guy that got Windows, got fed up and then got Ubuntu. In the meantime, MS got their $150 from this guy, so -- in the short term, at least -- they don't really care that he's not actually using Windows.

That's part of the reason why I'll buy from small vendors in the near future... At least when I Buy a box, and don't get Windows, I'll actually get $100 off from what they charge people who don't know that there's an option.

well

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:well

[Divebus]

Short answer: OS X

Amen to that, brother. Working for a place that does high end broadcast television work, most of the company moved from "why use a Mac?" to "why in the hell would anyone use Windows?" All it took was installing a few G5 workstations and within a year, all the Windows zealots were buying their own Macs.

They rib me by saying "you turned me into a Mac head!" and my answer is, "no, all I did was install the tools and you decided that yourself."

Selective degradation?

[Sparr0]

Maybe it is FUD, maybe not. I have not heard or seen conclusive proof either way. The "FUD" in question here is the oft-repeated 'fact' that if you play DRM'd content under Vista over a non-DRM-capable connection, such as VGA, DVI, or SPDIF, then *ALL* content going over that connection will be degraded.

switch to linux

[larry bagina]

Linux audio/video support is much better than Windows audio/video support (I'm sure we've all had the frustration of dealing with unsupported hardware). I suggest installing the real-time linux patches to decrease latency.

Re:switch to linux

[Mogster]

Currently we use Windows 2000 and Linux products.

Re:switch to linux

[scdeimos]

Linux audio/video support is much better than Windows audio/video support You've obviously never tried to install drivers for the latest ATI Mobility cards (for notebooks, you've heard of those right?) under Ubuntu so you can crank up xgl.

Re:switch to linux

[FlyingSquidStudios]

That must be why all of us video professionals work in Linux. Oh no wait, we use Macs.

Re:switch to linux

[geminidomino]

PCs are for geeks, Macs are for femmy, gender-ambivalent bishonen.

If that's not true, then Apple needs to fire thier ad agency.

Re:switch to linux

[howlingmadhowie]

i was under the impression that most professional video work in large special effects companies is indeed performed under linux.

Wow...

[Rosonowski]

Do people really care that little about this article, or is this place that dead? I was half-considering going for the "frosty piss", but damn. This is just sad.

Anyway, is Vista so locked down that you can't have ANY non-DRM'd files? Sounds a bit weird to me...

Re:Wow...

[darkonc]

No. You can have unprotected files, but there are certain conditions under which Vista (and it's drivers) will "magically" downgrade the quality of any media going across certain paths. Mostly, it should only occur if you're trying to use protected media under 'improper conditions', but sometimes it can occur if the system just thinks that 'something may be wrong'.

That something wrong might be you trying to tamper with the DRM system, or it might just be because a capacitor someplace got too warm and went out of spec.

Possible worst-case scenarios are: your business partner sends you a video clip in the email, not knowing that it's DRMed. You open the email while waiting for the final render of your $.5M video clip, and the presence of the 'unauthorized media' causes Vista to degrade the quality of the render for 30 seconds. If you're lucky and catch the problem, your QC people may spend hours unsuccessfully trying to track down the source of the problem.

More ominously, the installation of a new piece of equipment next door (say, an X-Ray machine) might cause a finicky board to sporadically set the 'trouble bit' and cause degradation whenever the new equipment is running. It could take you months to figure out why supposedly perfect renders go south at random times. .... and everybody involved in the creation of the errant drivers or hardware will point to the EULA that tells you to expect these things to happen from time to time.

Re:Wow...

[Rosonowski]

Jesus, I didn't think it could be THAT bad. Well, that's one more reason not to bother...

Re:Wow...

[joelleo]

Who renders on the same workstation on which they read email?? Thats just crazy talk.

With that being said, forthcoming "Troll" mod and all, I've been running vista enterprise for over a month now as my primary workstation (Dell Inspiron 9400) OS, including watching and creating all sorts of movies, from fraps of EvE to home movies. No DRM anywhere, no pesky "trouble bits" no degraded resolutions or lowered bitrates. Hell I AM making & watching movies on the same workstation as I read email - only doing it for fun, so no $.5M clips here. No undesired DRM either.

So, to the OP: My experience is "No DRM means no DRM" regardless of what the fud-monkies say. If you are already planning on moving to vista and this is one of those dealbreaker questions, relying on slashdot is like relying on James Bakker for sex advice: You know he's done it all but you won't get the straight scoop. Gotta try it yourself and see how it works for you how YOU will use it.

Re:Wow...

[dkleinsc]

I don't know what time it is where you are, but in a lot of places when the article was posted a lot of people are busy doing one of 3 things:

1. Drinking
2. Sleeping
3. Recovering from a hangover.

Re:Wow...

[gfxguy]

Who renders on the same workstation on which they read email?? Thats just crazy talk.

Every animator where I work. Why should they have two separate computers for email and animation/rendering when email takes so little resources (relatively speaking)?

Of course, when they do a "real" render, they use the farm - but during lunch and nights and weekends, that also includes all the workstations. Of course, then they're not reading email. Still, we use each resource as much as possible. On a slow day, an animator might not have anything to do and is just catching up on email, moving files around, cleaning out directories - all non-intensive stuff, so their workstation becomes part of the farm for the other animators.

Re:Wow...

[jc42]

Do people really care that little about this article, or is this place that dead?

Well, I can't speak for the others, but what I see is the usual mess of assertions, most of which can't possibly be true simultaneously. My reaction is to juust say I'll wait until some other guinea pigs get enough experience with Vista that they can say how it really works.

Of course, even then, I expect that when someone reports what happened to them, there will be a lot of replies telling them that they're a total idiot because they didn't so such-and-such, which turns out to be undocumented or won't work for most people no matter how much they wish it to work.

And then my conclusion will be that Vista's DRM is simply too complex like an idiot like me and the other 90% of the users, so I'll go look at something else. I think that's the basic reason the iPod has done so well. There are lots of cute gadgets out there. But when you watch someone else play with them and quickly decide that you aren't making sense of the UI, so maybe you should look at something else and try to find something that makes sense.

In my case, I'm an amateur musician (like lots of computer geeks), and I want something that lets me do what I want with my own stuff. That's difficult enough on a Mac, and I've found it impossible on MS-based stuff. I'm actually a lot happier with the linux-based stuff that I've used, because it's complicated but I can read manuals, so I can get it to do what I want. YMMV, of course, and most people become illiterate as soon as they touch anything called a "computer", so maybe for them the Mac is best (or the best of a bad lot).

And MS should know that I'm rather wary of buying something that will decide that my own stuff is inviolation of their DRM (which I just know I'll never understand ;-). So at least now, I acknowledge a strong bias against anything from them. Why would I pay good money for a system that decides that I don't have the right to use my own creations? And calling me an idiot because I don't understand simply tells me that you're probably right, and an idiot like me shouldn't waste my money.

But I suppose such a longwinded semi-explanation won't get me very far here, so I understand why we don't see much of a discussion here. Maybe tomorrow?

Ummm.. Obvious?

[weasello]

Vista restricts playback of *some* media. Media flagged as DRM controlled, in whatever internal fashion that is.

For those businesses or persons wanting to use it as an industry app, it's easy - just use the raw files your obtained from your source. Because in my industry, I get those files all the time, and if you aren't they have some 'splainin' to do.

1st Post 2007!!!

[Fallen Kell]

WOOHOOO...

Now that said. How do we know it will reduce quality of works created on the system itself? From my understanding, unless the media files themselves have a form of DRM on them, they won't be treated any differently then any other normal file. If you create it yourself as it seems that you would be if you are a marketing/promotion firm, then the protection is whatever you decide the protection will be. Just like in Linux/Unix, if you give it world read/write, well then anyone can read it and modify it. If you lock it down, well, then it is locked down.

Hasta la vista who?

[polemistes]

Good programs for content creation are: Ardour, Rosegarden, Kino, Cinelerra, Avidemux etc.
To use them, you should install Gnome/ gtk / KDE / QT / xorg / GNU / Linux etc.
This is old news. Why are people still talking about this Vista thing?

This FUD is all bad taste, it's like saying about a still born child:
He'd have become a villain if he'd ever grown up.

Re: Vista and the Music Industry

[Anonymous Coward]

...It appears that Vista only perform quality reductions for premium ("protected", or DRM-ed) contents played on certain (primarily analog, "unprotected" devices) devices. Users can create their own contents (record sounds, take photographs, record home videos, etc.) without any quality reduction whatsoever.

and the problem is that, to insure that no piracy happens, all content will be assumed to be premium very soon. Even if not, how about "fair use rights"? Those rights where we can take existing "premium" content and perform mods on it to make satire, etc to mock it? Gee, that is "de-facto" prohibited, ain't it?

The point is, it is not under your control at all, anymore. It is under Microsfot's control. And we all trust Microsoft, don't we? After all, they have proven themselves so trustwothry in the past, haven't they?

That's true, but...

[mrchaotica]

...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.

Re:That's true, but...

[Tim C]

but legislation to protect us from terrorists and pornographers can deal with that detail too.

There's a fatal flaw in your otherwise well thought-out FUD - legislators, politicians, CEOs, etc tend to be middle-aged or older. As such, they tend to have families, and a lot of them have grandchildren.

They're not going to pass any law that prevents them from creating or being sent pictures or home videos of their children and grandchildren. You can scaremonger and be as paranoid as you like, but it isn't going to happen.

Re:That's true, but...

[mysticgoat]

But seriously, you're absolutely correct that Vista won't screw with non-DRM'd media.

That's what I used to think, before I began reading about "tilt bits" and the hardware gyrations needed to support that and the other "protected channel" features. Now it seems like

1. At best, producing content on Vista is going to have much higher up-front costs for hardware than competitors using other OSs will face;
2. At worst, the product will be inferior if somewhere during the production process any activity unrelated to production flips any of the "tilt bits" or otherwise causes Vista to think that "Premium Content" is being accessed somewhere on the machine and all output must be degraded.

That second point is going to be hard to assess— it seems that even web surfing could trigger degradation in a concurrent production process if the browser happens across certain content (or the malicious spoofing of same). This could happen in a stealth mode so you wouldn not even be aware that the production process had gone bad (until you screened the final product).

I think there is serious cause for any content producer to look very hard at Vista before jumping in. You could end up in a 1957 500hp Cadillac hardtop convertible with power windows and air conditioning while your competition is miles ahead of you in a vintage Corvette.

Re:That's true, but...

[yabos]

Actually I can 100% guarantee they won't limit your ability to create YOUR OWN CONTENT on any platform. Apple and even Microsoft have NO reason to do this otherwise no one is going to use their platform.

Re:That's true, but...

[tbannist]

No, that's the next generation of legislators and politicians. This generation thinks the internet is made of tubes. And they'll be completely happy to make it illegal to send pictures or home videos of their children and grandchildren except by snail mail. After all, they don't use a computer so it can't be that important.

Re:That's true, but...

[DragonWriter]

There's a fatal flaw in your otherwise well thought-out FUD - legislators, politicians, CEOs, etc tend to be middle-aged or older. As such, they tend to have families, and a lot of them have grandchildren.

They're not going to pass any law that prevents them from creating or being sent pictures or home videos of their children and grandchildren.

Lots of the politicians who passed Prohibition were drinkers, too, who wouldn't pass any law that prevents them from having, serving, and being provided with alcoholic beverages. Of course, then they were relying on selective enforcement, influence-peddling, etc. They'd never rely on things like that now, right?

Re:That's true, but...

[marcello_dl]

We have always been free to create our own .doc on our own pc and we will always be, even in tightly DRMed future. And we will always be free to read it and to send it to approved platforms if we keep into the programmed upgrade cycle. The problems a media distributor can have are different than that, though.

With all this DRM hardware proposed

[nurhussein]

What of us who use Linux and don't have our OS implement any DRM against the will of the user whatsoever? What's preventing us from doing whatever we like even with "protected" media files (once the system is cracked)?

Re:With all this DRM hardware proposed

[darkonc]

You mean besides the law?

In theory, once the DRM is cracked, either Linux or Windows should be able to do whatever they want with it, but the DMCA says that you'll be looking over your shoulder a lot if you're intending to put the results of that crack out in public view.

DRM will mostly just prevent honest people from doing dishonest things -- unfortunately, those aren't the kind of people that you have to worry about most.

There 'always' have been, and probably ever will be professional pirates who will break DRM in ways that Microsoft's '(un)trustable computing' will never catch. I still remember the friend of mine who, in 1982 had a cracked copy of a 'heavily protected' game, 2 weeks before it was even released.
Oh yeah, DRM's gonna stop him, today ..... Yep. Yep. yep.

MS Response

[xrayspx]

"Holy crap, good point" -- S. Balmer

fp 2k7

[Angry Black Man]

!first post of 2007

Hang on...

[AmiMoJo]

This is tagged "fud", and yet has still been posted to the front page... It is obviously a troll post. Any reasonable person could easily discover that Vista only implements DRM for DRM protected media, not for every random file you create.

Editors, please... edit?

Re:Hang on...

[jb.hl.com]

You are confusing incompetence for malice yet again. It has long gone past pure incompetence and a wilful spreading of FUD, judging by the number of bullshit Vista articles that get posted daily and do little but offer yet another opportunity for the pale-skinned "Linux-uber-alles" crowd to shoot off another creamy load over just how disgusting Microsoft is.

Re:Hang on...

[kripkenstein]

This is tagged "fud", and yet has still been posted to the front page... It is obviously a troll post. Any reasonable person could easily discover that Vista only implements DRM for DRM protected media, not for every random file you create.

While part of what you say is true, many posts in response to this article have explained why even if DRM is only for DRMed media, it still has negative implications for non-DRMed media. I won't repeat them, a simple reading of previous posts should suffice.

This has got to be...

[Rendus]

The dumbest, most misguided argument ever.

There's no DRM in your .wav. There's no DRM in your .mp3. There's no DRM in the CD you burned. There's no DRM in anything that you didn't buy from a DRM-using source. There's no DRM in anything you didn't yourself digitally lock down. There's no DRM in the way to lock you out of content you yourself created, unless you're such a fucking moron that you're going to DRM yourself out of your own content.

But.. You are dumb enough to ask this question. It is entirely possible you are dumb enough to choose to store all your content, that you yourself created, in signed, encrypted, restricted use Windows Media 10 files.

Re:This has got to be...

[ewhac]

There's no DRM in your .wav. There's no DRM in your .mp3. There's no DRM...

You haven't been paying attention.

When you "squirt" a song from a Zune, the recipient is only allowed to play it three times, whether the song is Defective Recorded Media (DRM) or a plain, unencumbered MP3.

Prove that this defect in the Zune will not be "back-ported" to Vista. (Answer: You can't.)

Vista is untrustworthy. Install and use at your own risk.

Schwab

Re:This has got to be...

[ClosedSource]

"Prove that this defect in the Zune will not be "back-ported" to Vista. (Answer: You can't."

Prove that this defect in the Zune will not be "back-ported" to Linux. (Answer: You can't.)

I don't worry about not being able to prove something is not going to happen when there's zero evidence that it will.

Re:This has got to be...

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

Prove that this defect in the Zune will not be "back-ported" to Linux. (Answer: You can't.)

Actually backporting Microsoft propriatory code inti Linux is not something Linus nor Steve would approve. GPL rules in the Linux kernel.

Re:This has got to be...

[rudy_wayne]

There's no DRM in your .wav. There's no DRM in your .mp3. There's no DRM...

You haven't been paying attention.

When you "squirt" a song from a Zune, the recipient is only allowed to play it three times, whether the song is Defective Recorded Media (DRM) or a plain, unencumbered MP3.

True, but irrelevant. Anyone who buys a Zune is an idiot. Anyone who "squirts" a file to another Zune is an idiot. The acts of idiots is of no concern to me or any other rational person.

Prove that this defect in the Zune will not be "back-ported" to Vista. (Answer: You can't.)

Prove to me that you don't beat your wife and steal from your employer (Answer: You can't.)

Re:This has got to be...

[ClosedSource]

Sure, but the point is that you can't prove it won't happen. I was just illustrating the flaw of any argument that attempts to prove that X will happen simply because nobody can prove X won't happen.

Re:I think he doesn't misunderstand

[ClosedSource]

"Unprotected media might be unaffected by Vista DRM, but the only way to find out for sure is to risk your (possibly multi-million dollar) project and see if it turns out OK."

You've never heard of pilot project or testing? I imagine you'd only risk some worthless sample and a few hours of your time to find out "if it turns out OK".

how can media companies use Vista?

[Weirsbaski]

As a company creating music and video products, how can we use Vista to create, distribute, and use legal media?

You could always buy the development version of Vista. I believe the working code-name was "OSX Tiger".

Re:how can media companies use Vista?

[edwardpickman]

I hear the version after Vista is code named Leopard.

Don't Use Vista

[AC5398]

If Windows Vista and its DRM can harm your business, don't use them as your OS. Use MACs, or try Linux. Or go with an old version of Windows - XP or ME if you can't get over the Windows addiction.

Re:Don't musicians use macs?

[Divebus]

All our high end graphics and compositing moved to Macs from Windows a few years ago and 98% of our daily problems went away. Now, when the artists hear about other people's problems with Windows environments, they consider it an odd duck operating system from Mars. Guess what... it is now. Once you get over the relatively small orientation hump on the Mac, you'll wonder why you wasted your time screwing with Windows for so long.

Er, duh. GET A MAC.

[seebs]

"How do others deal with these issues?"

They use a mac for their production work.

Duh.

p.s.: Dear lameness filter: I know it is like yelling, THAT'S WHY THAT WAS IN ALL CAPS.

Re:I think he doesn't misunderstand

[darkonc]

Have you ever been involved in actual product development? I don't know how many times I've seen people get the final result out the door while the second hand ticks.

Yeah, they may have gone over it dozens or hundreds of times -- these people are often perfectionists. That's why the get the big bucks, but if some unexpected glitch causes Vista to spuriously trash the quality of your product on the final production run, 5 minutes before the courier has to get back to his truck, even catching the glitch might not be enough to save your ass.

And it doesn't have to happen always, either. One mangled video might be all it takes to trash the reputation of an up-and coming company. They'll never have the chance to figure out what hit them.

Re:It doesnt work that way

[ewhac]

...the reduction in quality ONLY happens if there is some premium (DRMed) content playing at that time.

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

Re:I think he doesn't misunderstand

[ClosedSource]

"Have you ever been involved in actual product development?"

Yes, for over 20 years. Since you bring it up, how many years of product development do you have?

"That's why the get the big bucks, but if some unexpected glitch causes Vista to spuriously trash the quality of your product on the final production run, 5 minutes before the courier has to get back to his truck, even catching the glitch might not be enough to save your ass."

Ah, yes, the hypothetical glitch rears it's ugly head once again. The great thing about the HG is that you don't need Vista or any particular OS or system because the glitch always does exactly what the personal proposing it imagines.

First Post

[phalse phace]

I have no life.

Re:Don't musicians use macs?

[MrWGW]

I run a design firm primarily using XP boxes, as I prefer to have a choice when it comes to what hardware I run my business on. With OS X I'm forced into only using Apple hardware, which imposes unacceptable limitations (no 8-12" laptops, no tablet PCs, very expensive workstations, limited parts availibility, et cetera). Windows can be a pain, but the added freedom and broader software library I get with it makes it worthwhile. I'm sure that the musicians asking us in this thread feel the same way. The really annoying thing about Vista in this context is that it now forces us to choose between a locked hardware/software platform (by a company that is not exactly known for stellar support of legacy products), an OS that has an infuriating amount of use restrictions and DRM, and then Linux/BSD/etc, which are great operating systems that are sadly not supported by the majority of commercial software firms, forcing the use of open-source alternatives that are quite frequently inferior to their closed-source breathren. I see myself slowly migrating my firm to Linux as the applications improve, while continuing to use XP for running things that won't work in Linux/WINE/et cetera.

Re:I think he doesn't misunderstand

[dtfinch]

You could be right, but we don't know that such a bug exists yet. I try not to attack MS with unsubstantiated speculation very often.

It's probably correct to assume that if they try to decode a protected file that has downsampling enabled to anything but a private overlay buffer in video memory, it'll be downsampled regardless of their hardware. Or at least that's how I'd write it. I haven't read much into it. If the company gets permission to use a protected video clip, they'd probably want to obtain an unprotected copy before working with it. The protected copy would look alright when they play it, but appear downsampled in their final product.

Re:I think he doesn't misunderstand

[misleb]

Wow, talk about FUD. I don't think you mentioned a single fact or reality. It was all hypotheticals like "what if..." "even if only 1%..." and "unprotected media *might* be unaffected..."

Here's an idea. Why don't you do some actual research *before* you respond to the guy worried about Vista's DRM. That way you might actually have something constructive to add.

-matthew

DRM

[Bananatree3]

DRM:Trying in every shape and form to stop a music listener from actually listening to the song while still making money.

Re:I think he doesn't misunderstand

[misleb]

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

"How do others deal with these issues?"

[Ralph Spoilsport]

The article asks:

How do others deal with these issues?"

As a media professional, I can tell you EXACTLY how I deal with it:

I use an Apple Macintosh Computer

RS

Re:"How do others deal with these issues?"

[toddestan]

Since the Mac won't be able to play the protected content either without the protected video/audio paths and heavy handed DRM, your time is coming too as I'm sure that the "media platform" won't want to miss out on HD. The only real solutions would be to stick with Windows XP or earlier, stick with the last version of OSX that doesn't have the DRM (probably 10.4.something), or switch to Linux.

Re:"How do others deal with these issues?"

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Toddestan wrote:

Since the Mac won't be able to play the protected content either without the protected video/audio paths and heavy handed DRM, your time is coming too as I'm sure that the "media platform" won't want to miss out on HD.

Well, it already DOES HD. iMovie HD is part of the $79 iLife suite. FinalCut Pro also (finally) handles HD.

With contemporary processors, editing video is trivial, and getting a system that Just Does That, is also trivial (compared to the cost of software and outboard hardware). Example: I have an old Amiga that has a crusty TBC card in it that will strip macrovision and other DRM noise out of the signal. And I use it for exactly that purpose when (in the rare instance) I need it, or if the signal from the tape needs Time Base Correction. The Amiga? Old, useless, hopelessly slow. But the TBC works like a charm.

Another example: I have a hobby of type design, and LOVE Fontographer (FOG). For years, Macromedia shafted FOG. In the process, Fontlab sprang up and became a dominant tool. However, the UI of fontLab is for shite - FOG is WAY better - fontlab isn't even close, and: FOG is way cheaper. so, for many years I kept a crusty old G3 running OS 9.x just so I could run FOG when I wanted to. I got the G3 for FREE (it's only worth like $30 - it's a 350 mHz G3...) so, I was good to go. I would design the font in FOG and then kick out a PS font, open it in Fontlab in OSX and then output as I deemed necessary.

Well, just before Adobe bought MM, FOG was sold to Fontlab. Fontlab upgraded FOG for OSX and so now I don't need the G3. It sits here under my desk collecting dust...

My point is, the cost of a CPU box is trivial, esp. in terms of legacy gear. As long as the motherboard doesn't fry, and you can get a HD it can address, you're basically good to go. The same goes for video. I have a G5 that runs FCP HD. When FCP requires Intel, and is encumbered by the kind of DRM you and the article describe, then that FCP machine will get set to "permanent legacy" status. It will sit and rot under my desk until a suitable alternative comes about...

or switch to Linux.

Unfortunately, while Linux is great for network/server stuff, and fine for office type work, it truly sucks for doing video. Driver hell, incompatibilities, lack of abilities in the software, etc. And when you get into that realm the Linux Geek saying "well, build your own video editor" is ludicrous. That kind of software is extremely complex, and far beyond even average programmer abilities. And with the constantly changing standards and the increasing complexity of those standards, you're not going to get anything out of a volunteer army that's worth using.

That said, I do have an old Linux box across the room. I use it for tinkering mostly - it's a "project machine". It runs openOffice. Yay.

RS

DRM is a red herring, but don't use Vista

[hobbesmaster]

I've used Vista for a while since RTM - I never got stopped by DRM doing anything with media. If you can do it right now in Windows XP, you'll be able to do it in Vista. As it stands, there is no media out there that uses any of the DRM features, and if the blueray/hddvd rollouts are any indication, I don't think we'll see them for a while, if ever. The real problem with Vista right now is that everyone's drivers are complete crap. I took a 30% performance hit on video and audio in Vista compared with XP - Creative and nVidia's Vista drivers are simply horrible (in fact the latter has severe issues with artifacting in games such as Oblivion and Counter Strike:Source. These games work just fine in Windows XP, and my card seems do just fine in Ubuntu using compiz).

This is the fault of Microsoft somewhat - they completely changed the way their drivers work for sound and video, though I can't imagine that nVidia and Creative are blameless. Systems are going to start shipping with Vista in a few weeks and games do not run properly. I'd imagine that other video intensive things like rendering and editing will run into the same problems.

DRM is a problem for legal use

[Peter Bonte]

There are many situations where using movie- an music clips from regular media is essential and legal, the DRM in Vista will make it harder if not impossible to do. Like somebody who produces private wedding movies is allowed to use mainstream music and broadcasting a HD-movie clip in a news item is also perfectly legal but prohibited by the Vista DRM.

Re:Switch to a Mac

[Gentlewhisper]

Yes yes yes... we all know how Windows is traditionally used for content creation.

I am even sure Linux is used to make more Oscar nominees than Windows. At least a bunch of animations are rendered on Linux server farms.

Re:Don't musicians use macs?

[Divebus]

Very expensive workstations? I wouldn't go there. Have you ever supported an SGI Flame? Now THAT's an expensive workstation.

Several things led to our migration to Macs away from PCs; Windows specific problems which were common on all the workstations [eventually], reduction in our support staff, noticing that we removed a bunch of 7 year old Macs that still worked and we dumpstered twice as many PCs in the same timeframe, and the surprise that the first G5 we ever tried (2.0GHz DP) ran rings around a 2.6GHz DP Windows machine with After Effects.

We installed the Mac as a second workstation in a few rooms. The artists resisted at first, then used the Macs to keep designing while the Windows box was rendering, then within a month told us to remove the PC from the room - they would never use it again. The artists got more done in less time on the Mac which more than paid for any difference in initial hardware cost in the first two days.

If you don't like the Apple hardware lineup, then fair enough, neither do I. They've got huge holes that remain unfilled. Significant software and hardware is coming online for OS X daily and we've found very few things that couldn't be done on the Mac. Now, with Intel Macs (have a few installed), that problem is solved as well.

Uh, troll?

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

What the hell is this article even about? The new DRM features in Vista include:

- PVP-UAB (sends video encrypted across the PCIe bus)
- PVP-OPM (HDCP / ICT support)

That's it. Protected User Mode Audio is just an update to the Secure Audio Path that's already in Windows XP. Windows Media DRM isn't new, either - every copy of Windows XP already has it.

I am running Windows Vista right now. The quality of non-DRM content is not "reduced" by Vista. 1080p H.264 videos still play in 1080p. MP3s sound just like they did under XP. I can still record from line in. WMP11 still rips to unprotected MP3s or WMAs. I can still rip DVDs. My XVID/AC3 videos still play. My no-CD patched games still work. FairUse4WM still runs and can still crack WM-DRM.

Vista has meant absolutely NOTHING for me regarding DRM. DRM-encumbered content is still as easy to break as ever under Vista. You can still write, distribute, and use DRM circumvention programs using Vista.

There is very little new as far as DRM goes in Vista. This isn't an XBOX 360.

Re:Uh, troll?

[westlake]

What the hell is this article even about?

In thirty days, Vista will become the default consumer install on every PC sold in the United States.

The Mac will remain strong in the same niche markets it has held for the last twenty years. But Boot Camp is the reality, not the Mac as the up and coming desktop OS.

Linux bringing up the rear ---as always--- with negligible OEM sales. In markets where the OEM system install is golden.

That is what this is all about. The marginalization of the Geek outside his own community.

Re:I think he doesn't misunderstand

[Heir Of The Mess]

Maybe he's thinking about pirates like in "The Scene" http://www.welcometothescene.com/ where one time they were trying to beat other pirates to a "Release" and then suddenly a technical glitch wiped all their files from the server.

People get a lot of their experience these days from watching movies. Software companies test the final version before releasing it, surely movie production companies do the same

Re:Er, duh. GET A MAC.

[seebs]

Er, no, I'm not trolling.

If you wanna do music production, and one of the major hardware platforms is actively trying to get in your face, use the other one. This is not complicated, and it solves the problem.

It's not as though you can't get music software for the Mac.

They own all content, didn't you get the memo

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Those pushing DRM want to own all content. If they can find a way to make you pay a fee to watch your own home movies, they'll use it.

Re:I think he doesn't misunderstand

[seguso]

You criticize the grandparent for expressing skepticism without proof. But the burden of proof should be on the other side. The grandparent could simply have said "what proof do you have that Vista decreases playback quality on unprotected media?"

Just dont use vista and thats that

[unity100]

Xp does everything ok at the moment, and there are linux distros. why are you itching to go vista ?

Re:It doesnt work that way

[Quagmit3]

"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 ;).

FUD or bugs?

[sowth]

...or a glitch turned it on, or it was activated during an update... All problems I've seen many, many times with MS software and settings.

Re:FUD or bugs?

[sowth]

Except I'm talking about glitches which happen all the time with MS software, not something that would happen with hard drives. Hard drives rarely just up and fail. I haven't had any. You should have plenty of warning because your logs are filling with HD errors. I don't run a server farm or anything, but that is my experience.

How many times have you experienced a mysterious system glitches caused by MS Win versus a hard drive or exploding computer? I've seen tonnes of glitches from MS but only experienced a dying hard drive once. Then again, I stopped using MS software at Win98 so I may be biased. XP is a bit more stable, but from what I've seen not much better in the "MS wants to control it all" and design department.

Did they really stop changing settings during updates and having weird glitches, or is it just wishful thinking on your part?

Re:Format

[Bastard of Subhumani]

No, it'll just make clippy appear and ask you if you want to. If you say no, it will ask you again. If you say no once more, it just does it anyway.

stoopid

[fozzmeister]

Until you protect it, its just a bunch of data and can be edited by anything designed to edit it. Suggest you have some technical understanding before making a fool of yourself in public, unless your just trying to spread FUD amongst the stupid.

Re: yes and no.

[Marbleless]

Yes, this place is that dead. There are far to many articles that are 'bullshiticles' (even duped

If the anti MS brigade on /. can't find anything more substantial to attack Vista on then they are basically saying that MS have actually got it right.

And no, Vista isn't that locked down.

Stop Drinking the Kool-Aid

[ClamIAm]

Vista doesn't have locks built into everything. Unprotected media files are still unprotected media files, so unless you slap DRM on everything as it comes in from a mic, you'll probably be fine.

DRM and personal media

[Jfarro]

DRM is a system being used for online media outlets...not just by Vista, but by any online stores selling media. Movie downloads, ITunes, Napster, etc.

Any media you own yourself or have created yourself does not get magical DRM added to it in Vista. If you rip a CD, the default settings for WMP is to not DRM the CD. These settings are easily found and changed.

I guess I may not understand what the authors issue is. The linked article links to yet another Inquirer article from which I could not gather what this authors worries are.

Amazing

[SimonInOz]

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.
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 .. and that souls actually exist .. but let's not get into that].
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 ... 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).

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.

what?

[ATAMAH]

I don't really have much to say on the matter...but why on earth are there no posts at all? Surely not everyone is like me ?:)

Re: OS/X .. from the leading DRM company!

[Marbleless]

The subject says it all. Sadly.

What happened to the FUD tag?

[Marbleless]

It was there earlier?

Is this the /. editors invoking their DRM capabilities ;)

Re:What happened to the FUD tag?

[Marbleless]

... it's back again.

Cue the Twilight Zone music ;)

Its new years day...

[rcb1974]

Happy New Year. This post is 3 hours old and there are still no replies. Could all the Slashdotters be asleep?

Back on topic...

I did notice when I was evaluating the final version of Vista that the Sound Recorder in Vista only let me save audio in Microsoft's proprietary (and lossy) format. There was no option to save the audio as PCM. So if the user were to modify and save that file repeatedly, the audio quality would get worse and worse each time he/she saved the file.

Sorta like one program I used that automatically re-saved your images (including lossy JPGs) if you rotated them. Rotate them 200 times and your photo becomes all full of image artifacts (blurry). This might make software easier to use (Fisher Price like), but is really bad design.

Re:Simple...

[Ash-Fox]

Get a Mac.

Apple supports DRM too.

Required reading

[Xiph]

Hi guys, and happy new year. Gutman wrote an article about this, which should be required reading when talking about vistas builtin idiocies.
It goes through how MS with Vista requires drivers to be closed source, hardware to be revokable and quality to be degraded.
It really should be required reading, before installing any version of Vista

Re:Unprotected media

[Technician]

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.

Old apps run fine

[nurb432]

Today.

Tomorrow you can expect that to stop, and only 'certified' individuals will get software that will work without DRMizing all the content first. This would be to prevent 'joe user' from doing 'unauthorized' things with his ( err, their ) content.

Sort of like how you cant buy freon unless you are government certifed.

Expect dev tools to fall under this same sort of control down the road someday. And before you say 'screw them, ill just use free xyz', when the compiler wont run on the board due to mandated TPM ( for our securty of course ), no you wont.

Re:Old apps run fine

[ClosedSource]

Sure you can make any unsubstantiated claim you want about the future, but the fact is that if MS wanted these DRM horror stories to play out they don't need Vista to do it, they could just put it in a service pack for XP and 2000.

The fact is that there isn't any good business reason for MS to do this. There is, however, a business case for allowing DRM'd content to play on Windows. If it turns out nobody buys DRM'd conent, that MS will have just wasted the effort.

Re:Old apps run fine

[nurb432]

1 - its not just microsoft.
2 - it will eventually happen, and when it does, remember that you were too short sighted to see it coming.

Re:Old apps run fine

[ClosedSource]

1 - the discussion was about Vista
2 - you present no evidence and then insult me

Re:Old apps run fine

[nurb432]

2 - yes, i did insult you. I'm surprised you even figured it out.

right

[Eternauta3k]

1. Why switch to vista until your editing programs run natively or designed for it? When they are "vista ready", you can switch without worries.
2.I have a feeling this whole vista drm downgrading thing will be like windows XP activation or the year 2000 bug. pure hype.

Get a Mac

[Arnold Reinhold]

Why deal with all the Vista craziness when there is another vendor that already has its DRM act together?

Slashdot - anti-Vista FUD 24/7 ...

[tereshchenko]

I've been alpha/beta testing Vista since mid-2005, and did not have a single DRM-related problem. I've ripped DVDs with DVD Shrink and DVD Decrypter, CDs with EAC and iTunes. Hell, even Windows Media DRM cracks work there.

You read it here first: there is no hidden scary unexpected changes in Vista.

Yes, there are expected third-party software incompatibilities - but that's a new version of OS, what did you expect?
And yes, competitors of MS (open source zealots, open source companies, Apple, Sun, etc) are using anything real or fake to bury competitor's product. Also expected. It is funny that they have to invent bs like subject of the article - proves that Vista is pretty good OS.

Time to go *outside* and relax.

Re:Unprotected media

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

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.

Since OSX Lepord can play video, I don't hink I would wan to be in the middle of a Skype call with my mom and also playing a dirty porn. What if Lepord messes up these audio streams and sends the porn audio to my mom?

Is there any reason to thing this is a reasonable fear? Of course not, but I still need to try to convince everyone they should be worried about it because I don't like OSX and want to see if fail.

OK, so I'm being a bit sarcastic but both cases are basically the same and both are classic cases of FUD.

Re:I think he doesn't misunderstand

[Tim C]

the only way to find out for sure is to risk your (possibly multi-million dollar) project and see if it turns out OK

Yes, because as we all know, of all the types of people who use computers as part of their day to day work, programmers are the only ones who can possibly carry out similar work at home either as a hobby or for testing purposes. Man, I'm so glad I'm a programmer and not so hamstrung as to not be able to pursue my interests on my own time too.

Let me go out on a limb here.

[harrkev]

Well, nobody else has commented, so let me throw in my $0.02 (about all that it is worth).

I do not own Vista, and I do not plan to ever own Vista, but what I have read is that this involves DRM. DRM just does not get put on media files by itself or by accident. If what you want to edit, you have in an unprotected format, then it will stay unprotected forever. You know that HD camcorders are coming out eventually, and M$ would be committing suicide if, all of a sudden, footage of Aunt Martha's 80th birthday party started playing back in low-rez.

Now, if what you planning on editing or re-mixing comes from commercial sources, you may have to look/wait for some cracks.

Re:I think he doesn't misunderstand

[jacksonj04]

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.

Haven't you already solved the problem?

[j0e_average]

Currently we use Windows 2000 and Linux products.

Simply don't use Vista! I don't think it's necessarily in Microsoft's business model to ensure you have the functionality you need or desire.

bullshit

[stachu trawki]

Damn guys, do some research first!

http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=2693 69#269369

And to save you that one click:
Here's what happens (more or less). When a playback application wishes to render high quality content, it asks the system what the capabilities of the output rendering path are. The OS tells it things like "All the drivers on the system are signed", or "The video is going over an HDMI connection", "All the code running in the rendering path is running in the protected environment (and thus contains no unsigned 3rd party code)", etc. The playback application than uses that information to make decisions on how to play back the content. It might decide it's ok to play the content. It might refuse to play the content. It might decide to downgrade the content. All these choices are up to the PLAYBACK APPLICATION. They're NOT built into the OS. All the OS does is to provide services to the playback application that it can use to make decisions.

and:
A) Vista implements Protected Video Path (PVP). PVP ensures that images are encrypted end to end.

B) Vista does not implement Protected Audio Path (PAP) which would do the same for audio.

C) PVP and PAP only apply to hi-def content that is specifically marked as protected. Currently nothing is available in this format.

So... no degrading audio, no degrading quality of other (say medical) images by having a protected HD disc in the drive, not even by playing that disk, and, finally, it's not Vista that downgrades the content, but the player application. And, guess what.., the application is not forced to downgrade the quality, it does it on its sole discretion.

Re:Switch to a Mac

[Ucklak]

Don't understand what you're talking about.

Macs don't prohibit a general creation of an audio/video file and degrades the content as part of a file I/O process.
According to the article, Vista does.

iTunes and iPod have nothing to do with file degradation within the OS. Those are just programs/devices.

Camera phone are already banned at most companies

[charnov]

I have worked contracts for several companies that have lost secrets due to camera phones and the only cell phones allowed, and only in certain areas, are company issued ones at these sites.

Consumer O/S

[Anonymous Admin]

Vista was never intended for a producer's use. It is a consumers o/s. It is intended only to regulate the consumers use of a producers media. You should probably continue to use what you have.

Re:Consumer O/S

[BanjoBob]

The products that we use are Windows platform applications -- mostly from Adobe Systems. With that being the case, we will need to run on Windows platforms until such a time that these products run on other hardware/software.

Re:Consumer O/S

[crusher-1]

Then M$ has just put companies like Steinberg, Tascam, Frontier, Ableton, Digidesign, Edirol, EMU, MOTU, Propellerhead, Soundcraft, Sonar, FL Studio, etc, etc, etc, and all those vendors that rely on these products such as Digital Village, Turnkey, Guitar Center, ad nausea in dire straights.

This also applies to many musicians that have systems built for these products. So what your saying is that if we in the independent music industry up grade to Vista and it doesn't work or screws up "product" then we have no one else to blame? That since "Vista was never intended for a producer's use" that we should either pony up for a system that does run my software (at likely a much higher cost) or stay with the existing OS - GUESS WHAT? We'll stay with the existing OS and the word will spread to avoid Vista at all costs.

Being a fairly tight knit community I can guarantee two things. 1) The negative outlook on Vista, if indeed it does hinder the artist creativity and production, will spread very very fast. 2) That if indeed Vista DRM and protection schema does as feared (as well as being viewed as another attempt by large corporations to yet again lock down and control/strangle it's would be artist) it will be viewed as a pariah and I garner that many industry OEM and SMB music system vendors will not upgrade their offerings for Window Vista and stay with XP/W2k/W2k3.

Vista could indeed one of the longest suicide letters in history - at least for a corporation.

Cheers, and happy music making.

Hardware Alternatives: Open Platforms

[dfoulger]

The real question, for me, is what the hardware implications of this are. There is a lineage of open hardware platforms, going back to the original IBM PC (and arguably into the CP/M platforms that preceded it) that have specified a hardware platform to which operating systems could be written and to which alternative or clone hardware could be built. Microsoft has increasingly taken a lead role in specifying what has grown to be called the so called Wintel platform, but it appears in this case (far more so than previously) that they have specified a platform that will be much more difficult for other operating systems to write to, if only because they are requiring hardware vendors to close their support for at least one major class of function (DRM support).

The easy response, which many of forwarded, is to move to Mac, but others have been quick to point out that Mac is already (and has pretty much always been) a closed platform.

It seems to me that the only way to resolve this problem is to start specifying an alternative standard platform that really is open. It may be that this platform will wind up being unable to run Vista (except, perhaps, in a degraded mode), but I don't think that will actually matter to businesses with mission critical software, high end gamers, or others who, like myself, value the PERSONAL aspect of PC's more than DRM content. My list of folks who can provide an alternative standard platform specification includes:

• AMD, Intel, or perhaps one of the other clone processor makers. AMD and Intel have been specifying platforms that support Windows for a while anyway. Is there enough of a market for an open platform that they would be willing to specify an open platform?
• Google, which is unlikely to find the Vista platform acceptable for their server operations
• The XO computer. Wouldn't it be nice if you could build your own XO laptop right now? Is this platform already open enough that it can be cloned? If it is, it could be at least an excellent starting point.
• The major Linux vendors, perhaps in cooperation with folks associated with other open source OS. Its possible that IBM might be interested in taking a lead role in this, much as they have done in other aspects of open source. It may be that even Sun would be interested.

What do you think? Is there a market for an open hardware platform.

DRM =

[Grand Facade]

all your content are mine

Costing you an arm and a leg.

[twitter]

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.

Re:Costing you an arm and a leg.

[arifirefox]

looks more like the year of the Xbox PC. :/

Re:Camera phone are already banned at most compani

[alohatiger]

That hardly qualifies as "most companies"

Microsoft got what they wanted

[TaoPhoenix]

It's been telegraphed that MS made Vista the most locked down OS ever. "Other People" ... will either stick with XP, Move to OS X, experiment (and possibly botch) Linux.

And don't tell me I'm the Frisky Post on this.

Microsoft is intent on keeping their products...

[X-rated Ouroboros]

"Microsoft is intent on keeping their products out of the realm of content creation and editing."

You've got it all wrong. Microsoft is intent of keeping content creation and editing out of the realm of the average computer user.

That's the point.

[twitter]

You say you are using Win2k and Linux, however you don't state any reasons as to why you need to move to Vista.

New hardware will provide the reason, but Vista will be a no go. The problem he faces is that the upgrade train is busy wrecking XP and other older versions of Windoze, but there is no real M$ upgrade path he can use. Installing new drivers to older systems can introduce changes that destabilize the system - M$ puts them into the SDK and everyone has to move along. If Vista degrades his performance like people think it will, content creators will be forced to look elsewhere.

I don't buy it

[ClosedSource]

MS isn't going to put Windows at risk (potentially losing sales or being sued) for the paltry sums that the content industry can cough up.

Re:Unprotected media

[Technician]

OK, so I'm being a bit sarcastic but both cases are basically the same and both are classic cases of FUD

I am going to stick with FUD. Have you ever opened several tabs and found some website globaly turned off right click to keep you from snaging a photo. Now none of the tabs have a working right click. I expect Vista to have the same issues with protected content in one application shutting down proper operation of other applications simply becasue the drivers get hammered for the hardware. It's in the specifications. It's more than FUD. It's very likely.

Re:I don't understand the problem

[CustomDesigned]

The problem is that using any DRM anywhere in the system will trigger the interference. So, for instance, if you play music off the net in the background, and accidentally pull a DRMed tune, it can trigger the secure channel features. Moving to the hypothetical, the future holds more peril. Applications may include DRMed images, etc, so it will be harder and harder to "just not use DRM".

There is an easy way to deal with the problem that I doubt will be implemented, knowing Microsoft. Provide a "no DRM" mode where the system simply refuses to play any DRM content (including refusing to display DRMed images in applications) rather than degrading all non-DRM output.

This is a subject I know of all too well.

[jskline]

I have already tried Vista out when it was RC2 and noticed that all but one program would either no longer function properly, or would no longer work at all. Sonar, the only app to start and run, failed to find my MIDI interfaces and hence couldn't talk to my external Yamaha tone modules, nor my Gigasampler machine. It certainly wasn't a driver issue since it could find and install a driver for my MIDI interface. I guess Yamaha and Tascam/Teac must be on Mr Balmer's "shit-list" this year.

I bailed on all this as soon as I discovered several other "gotcha's" to it, and decided it wasn't worth the expenses to upgrade everything else around it. It appears to me that Microsoft is more and more looking to control everything and I do not like it.

Most everyone I know that ordered a new computer recently, especially from Dell, specifically requested XP and NOT Vista. Dell immediately goes into this tirade about how wonderful Vista is and will really try and dis-swade you from the purchase without Vista. One friend ordered a machine with XP Pro on it, and Dell somehow actually sends them one with Vista installed--specifically against this users wishes. She had to have them pick up the machine and send another one with XP on it like they had asked for. This user was NOT AT ALL HAPPY with Dell.

I believe that this is the year that the Macintosh will have dramatically improved sales especially in the "arts" areas. I am a working musician and between music and graphic arts, Windows is once again headed for the dumpster. Right now I am still continuing to use Windows XP on my laptop with Cakewalk software mostly because that is what IS currently working and in use. When the laptop does eventually die, I think a Powerbook is in the future and back to software that doesn't try to own the musician.

I think the other story about drivers being tied to specific firmware is another "backdoor" trend that Microsoft might be using to lock in the next generation of hardware away from OSS/FS. Just my hunch though for what it's worth. I really need to take some more looks at putting a machine together under Linux that can do Audio and MIDI production work.

Re:This is a subject I know of all too well.

[jskline]

I think you ought to get on the phone to Dell and try an actual order of a machine bud!

Re:Unprotected media

[LO0G]

Actually, I WOULD be worried in that scenario. If you're watching porn with the speakers on while you're talking to your mother over Skype, then the microphone is highly likely to pick up the porn audio and send it to your mom.

But Leopard, or Vista, or whatever can't help you with that, it's your problem for watching porn while talking to your mom (yuck).

Re:I think he doesn't misunderstand

[yabos]

Your post makes it seem like you think Vista is going to randomly trash your data on purpose. There could be some unknown bug that does this but to suspect that it will do it just to screw you is too much. I don't like Microsoft or Vista and I only ever turn on my PC to play Call Of Duty 2 (yes I know there's a Mac version, doesn't work over Hamachi for some reason). I really hope Vista fails even though I know it won't. Your post however makes it seem like you think the only way anything is ever good is if it's on open source software. That's complete BS and you know it. Most studios are using proprietary software for huge budget films and I don't see anyone complaining about that besides maybe the cost. However Final Cut Studio is reducing that cost significantly for a lot of production houses.

Re:Problems with encrypted folders in Windows

[yabos]

Knowing Microsoft the keys were stored in /Windows/System or some other retarded place that gets overwritten by a reinstall. At least OS X's encrypted disk images you just enter the password and it mounts as a disk. You can transport them to other computers and it works fine. Also if you use FileVault and have to reinstall it still will be able to mount your home folder since it goes off your login password and not some secret key file.

Not an issue

[pla]

How do others deal with these issues?

Do any musicians use built-in Windows programs for capture and editing?

Vista's DRM, as offensive we may find it, has nothing to do with how third-party programs process their data of choice. Audacity will work just as well on Vista as on Win2k.

Now, one word of caution - This applies to the stock codecs as well as what you might normally consider "software". So if you use the default MS Format-X codec to read and write files of Format-X, MS has you by the balls. If, however, you use a (generally much better anyway) third-party codec, MS's stance on DRM has no effect on the quality of your results. Additionally, since you most likely keep the data in a raw format until the very last step of processing, even DRM-encumbered codecs shouldn't matter, since you won't use any of them in the first place.

Can Vista do anything?

[CycoChuck]

I keep hearing of things that Vista can't do. So, can anyone tell me what Vista does besides take more system resources to run than XP?

Vista DRM

[HPNpilot]

There may be ways around Vista DRM by using proprietary working formats Vista does not identify as protectable.

What I would be more concerned with is the "security" of the information that is being worked on. Without having to critically listen to every copy of the work, how can you assure that Vista's DRM hasn't triggered and reducred the quality of your work to trash without your knowledge.

Unless data integrity can be assured, there may be no alternative but to avoid Vista for any production work.

Re:I think he doesn't misunderstand

[jythie]

Wait... are you basicly saying 'because glitches happen, it is ok for malfunctioning microsoft software to intentionally damager my data'?

This isn't a glitch, it is intentional but poorly thought out behavior that could really end up hurting users.

Linux already has better security then DRM

[UnderCoverPenguin]

Linux already has a better security mechanism then DRM. It's commonly called "SE Linux" or "Security Enhanced Linux". It was originally developed at the NSA (National Security Agency), who then helped develop the LSM ( Linux Security Module) interface that was integrated into the main kernel development.

SEL provides comprehensive, fine grained access control and management. Most importantly, SEL is fully under the control of the machine's owners - *not* some external 3rd party, like Microsoft, the RIAA or the MPAA.

Any business that wants to implement this kind of control can do so, now (or could have, even 3 or more years ago), with Linux.

Not a Windows problem

[ZxCv]

But she's going to keep on using Windows, right?

As lame as Windows is, it didn't have anything to do with the DRM fiasco the GP talked about. That problem was entirely on Windows Media Player itself. Had she used iTunes (or something else other than WMP) on Windows to rip all that music, she would have been just fine.

Re:Not a Windows problem

[tcc3]

Its not even a WMP problem. Its called operator error. I use WMP frequently to rip with no trouble. The drm is not set by default. This is a case of not knowing how to work the program to get the desired results. When I see a badly photoshopped picture, I dont blame Photoshop.

Even the best, most usefull, foolproof system can be brought to its knees by its users.

Re:I think he doesn't misunderstand

[blackest_k]

http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/D/6/5D6EA F2B-7DDF-476B-93DC-7CF0072878E6/output_protect.doc

fud is it ?

Damage Reduction?

[zpeidar]

Aside from the obvious "use something else", wouldnt a solution where the amount of copying is minimized as much as possible work?, where all editing is saved to a reference file, this would of course only LIMIT the loss.

But hey, a little whining, and a few trips to IKEA (I hear they're having January-sales on Chairs) ought to be enough to get this fixed anyway.

Re:I think he doesn't misunderstand

[ClosedSource]

You seem to be unsure whether you think it's a glitch or not. What is the "intentional but poorly thought out behavior" you're referring to?

Re:I think he doesn't misunderstand

[ClosedSource]

So we have to read the whole document just to find that it is FUD after all. If you think that document proves your point, tell us exactly what your point is and then quote the part of the document that supports it.

A current example:

[cgenman]

DRM is a just tool for content producers. Unprotected media should be entirely unaffected by it.

My company churns out a lot of demonstration videos, usually in some sort of WMP format (as that's what the artists are familiar with). There are many times I'd like to take a screenshot of this video, mark up changes I'd like to see, and send it back. However, under XP this is impossible. No media player stuff shows up in screenshots, to help prevent video theft. And, hence, I spend more time than necessary sketching out facsimilies of the videos to explain what I want.

So yes, while DRM is a tool for content producers, there are system-wide consequences of its implementation.

Re:A current example:

[dtfinch]

Some Linux players have this issue too if they use xv (which uses an overlay) for video output. If you can configure Windows Media Player not to use hardware acceleration (not sure if they still have this option, it's been a while), it'll render to screen instead of a scaled overlay, and you can take a screenshot. It's more an unfortunate side-effect of overlays than a DRM feature, though it makes DRM easier to implement.

A fun trick with overlays is to take a screenshot, paste it into mspaint, and let the video play behind the mspaint window. The video will show though the screenshot.

Don't use DRM

[i_ate_god]

Vista locks down DRM enabled media. Don't put DRM in your media, and you won't have problems.

Simple Solution

[chrisxkelley]

http://www.apple.com/getamac

Absurdly easy answer

[tsstahl]

Microsoft will sell you the Vista Content Creation Edition.

The cost will only be about $3500.00 per copy.

Re:I think he doesn't misunderstand

[cibyr]

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

Opt-In

[ProfessionalCookie]

Do you mean the publisher opt's in? My experience is that if Microsoft is making it it will be Opt-Out for the consumer if if opting is even an option. Remember WMP- "Rights Protection" on by default, even when you're ripping from your own CDs.

Does WMP still so that?

Happy New Year, Ed

Wow. Least interesting /. story ever...

[jusdisgi]

Judging by the 11-hour period without comments.

OS X

[yusing]

Very many musicians use OS X.

quite to the contrary

[oohshiny]

I'll say that again, because it doesn't seem to be sinking in: if your platform doesn't support DRM, you won't be able to access future high-def content at all, because the people producing that content will not allow you to, as is their "right" based on copyright law.

Copyright does NOT give you the right to put technological restrictions in place; copyright is a deal whereby you publish content that eventually becomes public domain in exchange for a temporary monopoly.

In fact, technological restrictions are in conflict with copyright law: if you put DRM on your content, you have arguably not published the content, and hence shouldn't enjoy the protections of copyright law. It took an extra act of Congress to make DRM stick.

Dealing with vista

[SupremeDiety]

Using vista correctly is simple... don't.

First post

[rajafarian]

Only post?

Re:I think he doesn't misunderstand

[misleb]

Wait... are you basicly saying 'because glitches happen, it is ok for malfunctioning microsoft software to intentionally damager my data'

What I am saying is that without any specific reason to believe that Vista's DRM will have any affect on high end users, anyone who suggests that it will is just spreading FUD. There is no reason to believe that Vista will cause any more "glitches" in professional media output than any other system.

-matthew

Re:I think he doesn't misunderstand

[misleb]

The FUD is that this has absolutely nothing to do with unprotected, locally produced media.

Re:I think he doesn't misunderstand

[misleb]

You criticize the grandparent for expressing skepticism without proof.

There is skepticism... and there is FUD.

-matthew

Thanks!

[BanjoBob]

Thanks for all the comments. It was refreshing to see a couple of /. readers that have used pro AV tools for HD creation with Dolby sound. A lot of the comments fell into the platform/os preference bucket and some accused me of FUD or Trolling which, was not my intent at all. We will evaluate a Mac for speed since it takes a lot of horsepower to do HD-DVD quality production. The other option will be to stick with what we have for a while and not go the Vista route at this time.

Thanks again!

A word from the paranoid

[marcello_dl]

So, you accuse me of being so convolute to come out with"well thought-out" FUD, while at the same time you have a blind faith in politicians that can never hurt their nephews in any way (I agree, if you consider that in a polluted, resource starved and patented future the nephews of the rich can afford to survive, yours and mine will have a harder time)

You'd better have a more consistent attitude towards people you don't know. Anyway this is not relevant: let's wait and see what happens once vista has spread.

yes, the editors should edit

[alizard]

Since the holder of userID 196126 ("Animojo") is either a MS astroturfer or someone who's been hypnotized by MS talking points, he is incapable of contributing to constructive technical discussion and slashdot would not be losing anything of value if the editors were to edit his account by deleting it.

Perhaps with two of us asking the editors to get up and do something, perhaps we'll get what we ask for.

Glad I could help.

Re:I think he doesn't misunderstand

[jacksonj04]

Audio stutters due to processor load. The bits where it ran smoothly (After nuking all my background tasks) I couldn't tell any difference listening on Sennheiser PC150 headphones. Can't speak for higher quality reproduction devices.