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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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: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.

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

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: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.