Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Answers Vista DRM Critics' Claims
skepsis writes "Recently there have been some stories on Slashdot claiming that Vista would downgrade the quality of audio and video for every application in a machine where protected content was running. One of the stories painted a scary scenario where a 'medical IT worker who's using a medical imaging PC while listening to audio/video played back by the computer' would have his medical images 'deliberately degraded.' A post has been put up on the Vista team blog explaining exactly how the content protection works, and it turns out the medical IT staff and audio pros can relax. From the post: 'It's important to emphasize that while Windows Vista has the necessary infrastructure to support commercial content scenarios, this infrastructure is designed to minimize impact on other types of content and other activities on the same PC. For example, if a user were viewing medical imagery concurrently with playback of video which required image constraint, only the commercial video would be constrained -- not the medical image or other things on the user's desktop.'"
"the content protection mechanisms ...... will lead to better driver quality control."
Less freedom = better quality?
Might as well say it.
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.....
Wait this is M$ right?
The company that abandons the users on older machines, to help their customers sell new machines.
Of course they do not have any errors in the DRM or other processes that the error will not happen.
So why again I do not own the hardware in my equipment to be used HOW I WANT TO USE IT?
What is their alternative? Should they let others spew incorrect FUD all day long?
What is this trust you are talking about? If anything I'd say that Microsoft is one of the least trusted entities out there. They are so mistrusted that someone can spew FUD about their DRM schemes and people swallow it hook line and sinker.
WTF?
At best, this will prevent point and click piracy. With HD-DVD already compromised and Blu Ray on its way, I hate the idea of losing CPU cycles for a copy protection scheme that doesn't even work. If it comes to a point that everyone and their grandmother can pirate high defintion content with the click of an icon, can Microsoft make a Windows Update that removes this "feature".
Who decides if it requires image constraint?
Who else except me has such a call to make on my private property?
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
'medical IT worker who's using a medical imaging PC while listening to audio/video played back by the computer' would have his medical images 'deliberately degraded'
For the $400 per hour I get charged, that PhD can focus his whole attention on my MRI. If you job is important enough to complain about possibly degraded video, it's also important enough to not multitask. Listen to MP3's on your own dime.
We are all just people.
Just Wow. That's the biggest piece of bullshit response I think I've ever seen. Look closely and compare that and the original article. For example, the original article says that the component and S/PDIF can be disabled by the disc you put in the drive, and this article says that "Similar to S/PDIF, Windows Vista does not require component video outputs to be disabled, but rather enables the enforcement of the usage policy set by content owners or service providers, including with respect to output restrictions and image constraint" which sidesteps the point that a disc can disable the current standard connection from a normal computer to a normal TV you fucks!!! Of course they also go on about how the degraded image is still DVD quality, which is a great help to the people who spent an extra few grand to set up HD DVDs when they could have just gone to the shop and bought a DVD. They then also point out that you don't actually need a dedicated decoder, even though the original article pointed out that CPUs simply aren't strong enough for the task.
So all this Microsoft article has done is only confirmed my conclusion that they're trying to give the movie studios every opportunity to rape the people who try to watch their stuff. This is just bullshit marketing spin.
These guys do have a doosie though (emphasis mine)
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
There is absolutely no reason for critical medical imaging systems to be using any version of Windows, let alone Windows Vista.
Those are the kinds of systems that need to work. Thus they should only be run on systems that have a history of high-quality and reliability. We're talking about Solaris on Sun workstations, AIX on IBM workstations, HP-UX on HP workstations, or IRIX on SGI workstations.
Those machines are designed for no-nonsense computing, which is exactly what is needed for many medical imaging applications. Even if staffers from Microsoft claim that the DRM features of Vista won't have any effect, it's not worth the risk when lives are at stake.
I can't help but think that you guys are missing the point.
Anyone building hardware and/or software to play back modern media currently has two choices:
1) Implement the restrictions and allow the content to be viewable.
2) Don't allow the content to be viewable at all. (i.e. No HD-DVD or Blu-Ray playback, period.)
Microsoft doesn't create movies or music. Their only interest in implementing these things is so that users have a way of playing content on their operating system. Apple and Linux vendors will also have to bend over for the RIAA and MPAA if they want to be able to support viewing the content. There's a chance that Steve Jobs will bend the universe to his will on this and avoid it, but it's doubtful. Linux users will probably just find ways hack around it, and ignore the fact they're breaking the law (no matter how ill-conceived that law may be; the point is that if Microsoft breaks the same law they would be sued into oblivion. It's simply not an option.).
Blaming Microsoft for this DRM fiasco is lame. If you don't like DRM, focus your blame on those that deserve it and buy your media from sources that don't promote it.
That said, one thing that could be argued is that Microsoft wields enough money/power that they could fight back against the RIAA, MPAA, etc. and block the media industry's attempts to create such lame DRM policies. Personally I don't believe they have this amount of clout, especially with the antitrust thing still hanging over their head.
Over the holidays, a paper was distributed that raised questions about the content protection features in Windows Vista. The paper draws sharp conclusions about the implications of those features for our customers. As one of the Lead Program Managers for the technologies in question, I would like to share our views on these questions.
;)
... !
Oh, how sick that wording makes me ! Instead of being honest and calling us 'retards', he dares to 'share our views'.
Am I the only one with an allergy against this use of the verb 'to share' ?
When people share their code by using a sharing licensing scheme, like BSD or GPL, Apache, whatnot, I don't develop rashes; rather appreciate the gesture.
But what to make from a person (scroll down on that article) who shares the following about himself:
I'm a Product Manager at Microsoft working on the Windows Vista launch team. I also work with key influencers in our user community. This means I get to do cool stuff, play with lots of electronic toys, travel the world, and blog about it at the same time. I know you're jealous
No, I'm not that frantically jealous about people who prostitute themselves to make a living
I am confused as to your post. The Slashdot article is actually offering Microsoft's rebuttal to concerns over how WIndows Vista downgrades the user experience if "protected" content is involved. Is, perhaps, your concern that Slashdot readers might learn about how Windows Vista downgrades the user experience if "protected" content is involved? I do not think it would be right for Slashdot to neglect to report on the nice new "feature" of Windows Vista whereby Windows Vista downgrades the user experience if "protected" content is involved, do you?
The answers to Nick White's twenty questions are so far beyond useless that they actually inspire rather than calm fears about the potential and likelihood of Windows Vista's DRM technology being abused and/or abusive.
Tell ya what, Nicky. When my customers start calling me about why their computers are performing exactly as you and Microsoft designed, contrary to what they (the consumers) wanted, I'm going to lay it all out for them, straight and level.
I'm going to tell them who it was who sold them a windowless room and told them it was a wonderful vista. I'm probably going to tell them up whose rear ends they can shove their copies of Windows Vista, a task I'm pretty sure they'll want to do rather violently. Then I'm going to name half a dozen OS products that fit their needs beautifully, products without digital restrictions management (DRM) inhibiting their right to fair use, and not a one of which is a Microsoft product.
Oh, and just to be clear, Nicky, I don't sell computers or operating systems, just computer service and consulting. (I'm often told I should start selling computers, but it'll be a shop free of Microsoft products if I do.)
It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
...deliberate sabotage, any way you slice it, designed on purpose to perpetuate a business model developed when duplicating content was hugely more expensive than it is now from a strictly technological viewpoint. It is (very generally speaking of course) the work of those already rich and powerful to stay that way, and to seek to lock away technological advances only to themselves as much as possible, through obvious and unchecked wide scale cartel market manipulation actions and also through extensive lobbying to make the laws reflect the profiteer's paranoid-and elitist- neoluddism.
It's Ok for the rich and powerful to have any advances and advantages from modern technology-but don't let those slavering "masses" folk have the same, even when it becomes technically and economically possible. Cuts into that "bottom line" thing, or at least that is their paranoid theory.
Enforcing artificial scarcity combined with the broken-windows economic model is the height of their intellectual business acumen.
No one disputes this is immensely profitable for them, given our current social and economic infrastructure. It remains to be seen if this will always be the case.
We left the caves a long time ago, seems like maybe it might be nice to leave the medieval period some time soon. But I guess the aristocracy isn't quite willing to give that up yet.
I think people are forgetting who are Microsoft's customers.
The end users are not Microsoft's customers. The end users who purchase Windows are very much in the minority - the overwhelming majority of users get their Windows bundled with their PCs. Microsoft's customers are the computer vendors and big media. Microsoft's customers are demanding that content be controlled and that users are given an incentive to buy new hardware.
The customer always gets what they want.
-- The universe began. Life started on a billion worlds...
-- Except on one where stupidity was there first.
As Guttman was claiming that this content protection would de-stabilize your computer even if you never played protected content, this seems to have been refuted.
i.e.
Driver revocation, tilt bits, image constricting and encrypting the PCIe bus only happen when you play premium content, and can only affect the content being played. If you're worried about all this don't play HD-DVD's on your PC, play them on your 50 USD Chinese HD-DVD player.
Ideas that your graphics card can be turned off remotely by Redmond, or that accidentally playing a web page with 'protected' content in the background will cause medical images to be degraded are plain incorrect.
Concerns about Audio and Video editing in Vista are unfounded as their content is unprotected and will not go through the protected video path. And if AAC is properly cracked then HDDecrypter.exe is unlikely to use a protected video path / HDCP montior is it?
Points about this open source graphics drivers are a bit more ambiguous, but it seemed graphics drivers were moving towards a closed source model anyway. And there is nothing stopping graphics manufacturers from producing non-HD-capable cards for the business market so it isn't going to drive up all hardware prices.
Having said this, *if* you want to play protected content legally then I think there will be pain.
People will be frustrated by the graphics card and monitor compatibility, and there is every chance that the 'Protected Video Path' will not work as smoothly as intended. Even now HDCP is causing problems with standalone players. And even if it all works concerns that you are no longer trusted on your own computer are valid.
However you can quite happily use Vista and not be affected by the 'content protection' at all.
If you thought Microsoft was going to be able to stop the draconian restrictions on HD-DVD then the think again - their biggest market is in standalone players rather than people playing the movies on their PCs so they could do without Microsoft if they desired. I don't believe Apple will be immune, although they'll probably roll it out on new iMac's and rely on its physical design to
In conclusion, there are issues with the DRM in Vista but if you never play protected content you will never experience them.
OK, so Vista gives content providers a way to lock-down and restrict their products. Microsoft has "added value" to a product for a segment of people that are not their customers.
So as a paying customer (I buy operating systems for personal use, and oh...by the way, I am responsible for IT purchasing for my ENTIRE company), what does Vista give me and my users, that should make me cut a check?
From what I understand, Vista works pretty much like XP, and now thanks to Volume Activation 2.0 Vista corporate copies will now all REQUIRE activation.....every time we re-image a machine. Activation now requires me to either run a key management server (and baby-sit all my roaming users making sure they connect to my network twice per year) OR use multiple activation keys....that means phone calls to Microsoft when eventually the keys stop working.
So microsoft, tell me, why should I fork over my (or my company's) cash?
-ted
If anything I'd say that Microsoft is one of the least trusted entities out there.
They worked very hardm screwing partners and customers alike, for decades to attain such status. They deserve it more than anyone else.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
How exactly does limiting the quality of the video translate into providing consumers with additional functionality?
But if it is true, and his shiny new computer stops working because of some stupid DRM, then negative word-of-mouth will kill Vista, at least for home users.
Which would be a pyrrhic victory at best. *DRM* is the real villain and proper copyright reform (if not complete replacement) is the real victory.
I work on many systems where downtime costs money, and accidents cost lives. If you are engineering a critical system, you want to know what is going to happen. You want to make sure that nothing overrides the code you wrote. If you have to override and delete every non-essential function on the PC, then you will do it. Doing anything less leaves the threat of lingering lawsuits, financial damages, and potential accidents.
DRM on Vista must be all encompassing, and there must be no way to shut it off. If the DRM wasn't all encompassing, then it could easily be turned off, and there wouldn't be much point in having it. DRM only works if it is all encompassing.
I have watched Microsoft water down its "Microsoft Windows NT is a secure C3 operating system" promise with 2000, XP, and now Vista. Either the customer is in charge of their computer, or Hollywood is. You can't have it both ways.
Think about it: Do you want your surgeon making decisions based on computer output from code designed by a movie studio?
Wait until China starts importing something other than the Cherry (Chevy) to the U.S.
Next it will be the ChiPC computer line, and I'll bet the OS does not have DRM on it, and I'll bet it undercuts HP & Dell.
No special graphics card.
No special chips.
No VISTA
Microsoft has a LOT to LOSE by aceeding to the demand/acquescence to load the whole system to protect media companies from common consumers. Again, I think Warren Buffet said it right when he said he would not invest in Microsoft because he didn't understand the business model for the long term.
A pyrrhic victory would require some sort of substantial loss. I doubt many would call the loss of Microsoft's newest OS a loss.
Your post seems to imply that Microsoft is blameless for leading the DRM charge. DRM and bad copyright legislation are things that we need to fix but that doesn't mean we should ignore the villains who advocate them.
You never saw Microsoft attacking a filesharing program but Microsoft was first in line to implement DRM. Microsoft volunteered to implement DRM measures and led the technological way in the DRM arena. Some companies resisted but caved, some caved without a fight but microsoft is the only company I know of that actually volunteered before any content provider could even think about demanding.
Ever consider that it might be a driver issue? I can play both DRMed and non-DRMed videos fullscreen without problems on my Radeon 9800 Pro, including those that I've created myself. It sounds like you're blaming the most obvious target without providing much justification.
Your quoting one publication and he is quoting another. Your spreading FUD as much as he is.
US computer industry yearly revenue - ~$300B+
MPAA member yearly revenue - ~$50B.
Take out the revenue generated from servers, business desktops, embedded devices and other such things which have zero relevance to the comparison.
Just why do you think that an industry that is at least 6x larger does not have a realistic chance of forcing hollywood to capitulate rather than the other way around?
Because Hollywood has something the computer industry wants, but not vice versa[0]. The vast majority of commercial, professional, high quality media is consumed through standalone devices like DVD players, set top boxes and CD players, not computers - and this is not likely to change in the near future.
The impact on Hollywood of computers not being able to play hi-def content would be negligible, because people will simply use their standalone devices. The impact on a computer platform that cannot play hi-def content will be more significant, because there is no alternative for the software developer (ie: no real source of alternative content that people will want).
[0] The iPod was a notable exception, but there probably won't be another such aberration any time soon.
False dichotomy. You're assuming that the only full-quality experience is provide by RIAA/MPAA-owned content.
Not in the slightest. I'm assuming that the vast majority of content the majority of people are going to be actively seeking out, will be sourced from the RIAA, MPAA and friends.
You'll need a _very_ convincing argument to demonstrate why this assumption is even unreasonable, let alone "false".
Realize your options, and the RIAA/MPAA is dead in the water.
It's not the people on Slashdot, that you need to convince of this.
Well done, you found a bug in a pre-release version of an operating system.
Did you report it back to MS like, you know, you should have done?
Actually, if I remember correctly, it was Apple leading the charge in DRM, yet if you look at an article concerning it there's endless amounts of fanboys crying that Apple was the victim and that they were forced into it. In a Microsoft article, they're the villian. I realize that people hold different opinions, but the points of view are so polorized I can't help but think that theres a fair amount of hypocrisy being thrown around.
They're all DRM-enabling bastards. The reality is that the entire industry is leading the charge. Not just the MIAA and RIAA, but the game industry (draconian game copy protection), software makers (whens the last time you just installed a piece of off-the-counter software), and OS makers (try installing AppleOSX on a normal PC without jumping through hoops, or Windows without activating).
To pin it all on Microsoft flatters them, and misses the big picture.
Citing a source = spreading FUD now? Interesting outlook you have there.
Since my prior response was apparently too oblique (modded down as offtopic -- go figure), I thought I'd expand on it a bit:
It seems to me that the article is using the the term "Slashdot story" to imply that the information is all FUD by default, when the original source is, in fact, highly reputable. Perhaps you don't believe attribution is important, but I do. If the Weekly World News quotes Milton Friedman or Steven Hawking, you can't honestly dismiss it by saying, well, it's just a Weekly World News story.
// This is not a sig.
There is another alternative: The operating system on my computer can play content at full quality. Why do you insist this is not an option?
You cannot violate the copyright on media you have purchased (say an HD-DVD or Blu-ray DVD) by playing it back on your computer. I should, of course, be able to play back the media I have purchased on my own computer at full quality. In this regard, Windows Vista is a problem in that Windows Vista downgrades the user experience on "protected" content.
A lawyerly answer does not change this.
You're wrong here. While most of the blame should be placed on those, who ship DRM-tainted content, Microsoft is clearly guilty of "aiding and abetting" this scheme. Much like someone lending a gun or a car to person clearly saying they need it to rob a bank. And for a share of the loot. So Microsoft is not the only party to blame, not even the party that should get most of the blame - but certainly they don't come out clean.
The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
Given That Information Wants to Be Free...
...and it's proven time after time that Information becomes free in the end.
If you have bits that somebody else wants to read, and those DRM'd bits come into possession of the public, given enough attention, they are going to be read.
Amateur Librarians everywhere are always ready for the freed bits with their BitTorrent.
Why haven't they learned that is a foolish, wasted, investment to develop or implement DRM technology?
In the final analysis, it's no less or more difficult to copy anything with DRM than without. It's just a fun and interesting challenge for the motivated and talented research hackers.
I feel sorry for any engineer who spends their time working on DRM. I suppose that some of them might be getting rich by selling this DRM snake oil to the willing buyers. I suppose the unwise among us believe they can create an unhackable DRM system.
Anyone seen my low uid? last seen 10 years ago while panning the #@$# out of Taco's 'web based discussion system'
Dude based on your lack of knowledge of how video and DRM works I would not just hold off on Vista, I would get a new job. Vista DOES NOT apply DRM to your analog video and the ONLY cause of your problems are the drivers (NOTHING to do with DRM). Nvidia Vista drivers currently suck, they are buggy and slow, go check the nvidia forums, the problems with the current beta drivers (yes you are using beta drivers) is as long as your arm. go yell at NVidia before spouting FUD.
Are any of you out there breathing a sigh of relief that some radiologist isn't going to be making a mistake during the examination of your X-ray while listening to Welcome to the Jungle? Seriously, how stupid and unlikely was this doomsday scenario anyway?
"Cannot be stored in a banking system which uses "Free Software"".
Why is it fair for Microsoft to discriminate against people without $200 for VISTA but OSS developers can't descriminate against people who don't share and are evil.
Electronically-distributed reference and training materials are likely to be protected, as well as other material required by doctors, architects, artists, audio and video engineers, and so on. Every copy protection ever implemented has turned out to protect too much, so I think it's likely that this will interfere with medical imaging, audio chart notes, professional graphics, audio and video production, and so on--with actual work done on these computers. Some life-threatening results in the medical and building professions seem likely. I think Microsoft has probably made an honest effort here, and they believe this will work as claimed. But it doesn't seem likely that it will. As if this were not enough, it's probably going to make these systems unreliable for general consumers, and while I think the media companies will be happy that consumers end up not wishing to use computers to view their oh-so-precious content, I doubt that MS will be happy about it. Finally, it strikes me that the resources that went into these protection schemes could have been used to improve the Windows UI, develop applications, and, well, do useful things instead of waste everyone's time.