Blogger Objects To Accusations Surrounding Vista DRM

Technical Writing Geek writes "Self-described 'professional paranoid' Peter Gutmann of the University of Auckland has become the most widely quoted source of information on DRM and content protection in Windows Vista. The trouble is, according to ZDNet Blogger Ed Bott, Gutmann's work is riddled with factual errors, distortions, contradictions, and outright untruths. From the lengthy piece: 'As Gutmann would know if he actually understood how HD hardware works, Vista will indeed display HD content on this monitor over the D-Sub and component video outputs, which are capable of outputting 1080p and 1080i signals, respectively. In the future, a content provider might choose to constrict the output to these devices, but that decision would apply only to a specific piece of media, and it would have to be disclosed on the package, giving the buyer the opportunity to choose not to purchase it.'"

Comments

The problem with Ed Bott's response

[jkrise]

is that it lacks credibility. He quotes other blogs and manuals of equipment - and is light on actual technical details. No one outside of the core development team at Microsoft can claim any competence on the DRM implementation - and again, no one can predict when MS can choose to suddely implement hitherto unknown features via Service Packs or Auto Updates.

Considering that playing audio on Vista cripples the network and I/O badly, Guttman's assertions appear far more credible.

Re:The problem with Ed Bott's response

[mfh]

..."choose to suddely implement hitherto unknown features via Service Packs or Auto Updates."

Especially unannounced / unapproved updates. Your machine may have been patched while you read this.

Re:The problem with Ed Bott's response

[ConceptJunkie]

The fact that the HD DRM issue is so complex people can't understand is, itself, an indictment that Windows (and anything pertaining to multimedia) has reached a point where it no longer serves the consumer, even if it actually works, which as we've seen, is often not the case.

I can't imagine wanting to get into the whole HD thing, it seems rife with unforeseen pitfalls, misleading marketing, devices with built-in crippling that can be turned on at random by the vendor, arbitrary and capricious limitations and a general air of out-of-control bureaucracy with the consumer at the mercy of people who treat him like a criminal. (A lot like Vista now that I think of it.)

I'll keep my 18-year-old 26" RCA TV and low-end Toshiba DVD player... it works just fine, thank you.

Re:The problem with Ed Bott's response

[Hanners1979]

The problem is that the DRM has to be embedded so close to the metal that you'll never escape its effects.

But what are these mysterious effects? Nobody seems to have seen them, aside from the proclamation from the masses that every bug, vulnerability or crash in Vista is because of 'teh DRMz'.

Vista 'will' or 'will not' display HD content

[Ed Avis]

The two writers disagree on the meaning of 'Vista will not display HD content on this monitor'. Ed Bott appears to contradict himself:

Vista will indeed display HD content on this monitor over the D-Sub and component video outputs, which are capable of outputting 1080p and 1080i signals, respectively. In the future, a content provider might choose to constrict the output to these devices,

In other words Vista will display HD images but only in un-DRM mode, and if you try to pay a movie that you have bought and paid for but which has the flag set for 'trusted output path' or whatever they call it, Vista will refuse to display it. Which is, I think, the point Peter Gutmann was trying to make.

Re:Vista 'will' or 'will not' display HD content

[Barraketh]

I think this is an important distinction that has to be made, so I'm glad Ed Bott is making it. The provider is *choosing* to make his content only playable through an encrypted channel, and the consumer is again *choosing* to buy this content. Microsoft is merely providing the option to do so. Including the option of playing drm'd wma files in media player doesn't mean that your system suddenly won't play mp3s, and similarly this doesn't mean that Vista won't play regular h264 files over d-sub. Now, many slashdotters hate the entire idea of drm, and so they might think that even giving the content providers this option is somehow "evil". Well, guess what - this is capitalism, and Microsoft thinks that the ability to play HDDVD/BlueRay is good for business. They have no obligation to uphold some undefined ideal of freedom - if the consumers want media without drm, they'll buy media without drm.

Re:Vista 'will' or 'will not' display HD content

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

In other words Vista will display HD images but only in un-DRM mode, and if you try to pay a movie that you have bought and paid for but which has the flag set for 'trusted output path' or whatever they call it, Vista will refuse to display it. Which is, I think, the point Peter Gutmann was trying to make.

It's also worth noting that the only software players capable of playing BluRay and HD-DVD discs on PCs are the commercial products PowerDVD and WinDVD. Both of these players restrict output to something like 900x500 if the player detects that anything other than HDMI is being used. The discs themselves and the OS are not responsible for this decision. Both PowerDVD and WinDVD decided on their own to restrict output on HD-DVD and BluRay if HDMI is not in use. None of the movie studios have objected to this policy. So while the discs themselves and Windows Vista are not restricting HD content output, the only players available are restricting this output. None of the currently available HD-DVD and BluRay discs have turned on the flag on the disc that restricts output if HDMI is not in use, but that could change at any point in the future.

Re:Vista 'will' or 'will not' display HD content

[OverflowingBitBucket]

In other words Vista will display HD images but only in un-DRM mode, and if you try to pay a movie that you have bought and paid for but which has the flag set for 'trusted output path' or whatever they call it, Vista will refuse to display it. Which is, I think, the point Peter Gutmann was trying to make.

And the fact that Bott subsequently tries to dismiss the whole thing as a triviality, even in the face of the obvious future use of this misfeature, really does call his objectivity and credibility into question.

Please don't link to blogs "debunking" stuff...

[A beautiful mind]

...they tend to be wrong.

I don't see how listing 4 errors would constitute as a debunking of a paper, much the less when after a cursory glance the last one is patently not debunked. The blog is trying to debunk Gutmann when he says that the DRM system is overcomplicated and might cause problems. The blogger basically says computers are fast enough to handle the DRM and equates Gutmann saying "polling every 30ms" with executing a single cpu instruction every 30ms and concludes it's not taxing at all.

Of course the "play audio and don't expect your gigabit card to work fast" easily disproves his whole counterargument.

Re:Please don't link to blogs "debunking" stuff...

[drsmithy]

Of course the "play audio and don't expect your gigabit card to work fast" easily disproves his whole counterargument.

How so ? It has nothing to do with DRM.

Re:Please don't link to blogs "debunking" stuff...

[ednopantz]

I'm going to go with "funny."

• The man says that Bott's debunking 4 points of Gutmann's paper doesn't invalidate the paper.
• Then says Bott is wrong on this 1 point so it debunks his whole paper.

This has got to be some kind of meta-commentary on debunking. Either that or the commenter doesn't read what he writes. A third possibility, likely since this is Slashdot, is that when one needs to bash Microsoft, 2 + 2 = 5 if it needs to.

Oh, in THAT case.

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes ALL the difference I suppose. I guess as long as the box is supposed to say you're getting screwed, then it's OKAY to get screwed. I mean, if that's the only format available to your honest consumer, the Take-It-Up-The-Rear Edition Gold, now with new and improved Paying the Middleman Features, then it's just plain good business, right?

....Right??

Anything you have may be taken away.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's obvious that they can't immediately take away what you already have; otherwise they wouldn't be competitive with their own existing solutions. What's important is not what they block now. What's important is that they can auto update you later to take away whatever you have. Further, all of the media is being designed to block you out if you don't accept auto updates.

Giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt

[BadAnalogyGuy]

There are two sides to Microsoft. The business side and the technical side. The technical side is filled with people who want to build good things that are useful and enjoyable to use for many people (though it sometimes doesn't feel that way). The business side sells the technology to anyone and everyone, and makes promises that are too difficult to keep and in the process tarnishes Microsoft's reputation.

So what happens when Microsoft starts supporting industry standards is that the technical side gets it as right as they can while the sales side is selling clients the moon. All of a sudden, clients get their wildest dreams answered. In reality, that's not happening. But since MS has got that bad reputation, they make an easy target for anyone with an axe to grind. Small variances from the truth can be made with impunity for these complainers, because everyone already assumes the worst from MS.

By the type of comments I expect to see in this thread, most people have already made up their minds one way or another. Since this is Slashdot, they will obviously be negative towards Microsoft.

Re:Giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt

[ScrewMaster]

You have it just a little backwards. Most of the people here on Slashdot have had their fingers burned by Microsoft, at one time or another, and are generally far more technically ept than most. I know my fingertips are a little charred around the edges, so on those occasions when I bash Microsoft it's because I'm speaking for experience. Furthermore, I'm not particularly forgiving of defective-by-design software, no matter who the vendor. A lot of Slashdotters are like that, and the fact is, unfortunately, that Microsoft produces more DBD products than anyone else.

If Microsoft has a bad rep, after all these years of second and third chances, it's because they've earned it.

Re:Giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt

[GuyverDH]

- Tongue in cheek mode -

Microsoft has used up it's and everyone else's share of "The benefit of the doubt", and that was before 1990.

There's none left to be had, anywhere.
Talk about being a monopoly. What are all the poor Senators and Representatives to do?
- End Tongue in cheek mode -

Okay, now that that's said, we can proceed.

MS has pretty much used up it's share of sympathy from the masses.

Windows Vista should never have been released. Ever.

They should have chucked it up as a mistake, taken it apart and worked on it some more, eventually releasing it as something else. This time with things working, like networks that don't come to a halt for listening to a song, graphics that don't crash the system when attempting to play a game. Screens that don't go black when attempting to watch a movie.

Re:They might do WHAT?

[Aladrin]

Are you late jumping on this boat or what? We've known about this since long before Vista launched. In fact, everything in this article was known. The exact same thing happens on a PS3 without an HDMI/HDCP TV as well.

It's just another instance of DRM harming the consumer and NOT harming pirates. Pirates will just strip the DRM and watch it however they please. Consumers will have to buy equipment that is certified, and if something changes in the future, they may have to buy more equipment. (They -may- be able to upgrade firmware, but that's not guaranteed.)

I would point out

[Toreo asesino]

Wording aside, Samsung themselves state quite clearly HDCP support is available through DVI. There's your trusted path.

Re:FTFA

[Andy Dodd]

You can't play DRMed HD over a "vanilla" DVI port. This is a known fact. Unless the port supports HDCP (not part of the official DVI standard, and known for LOTS of interoperability problems - see Westinghouse TVs vs. PS3 for example), you're screwed.

Also, the article summary attacks Guttman for claiming that HD can't be played over an analog port. Both are wrong here. DRMed HD can currently be played over an analog port because few discs enable the ICT (Image Constraint Token), but it's just a matter of time before the ICT starts getting flipped on and analog outputs start going to half resolution. I've heard rumors that some cable systems enable ICT for all cable content already.

Note: When I say "DRMed HD" I am referring primarily to the most well-known sources of DRMed high def content, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. Both have these limitations among others.

Re:FTFA

[jkrise]

A bug with audio + network speeds (which, btw, Microsoft has admitted is a bug they're working on fixing) has nothing to do with spreading FUD as fact about Vista DRM tech.

This is not an ordinary bug, as in wrong implmentation in code / hardware of a technically sound architecture. The network stack in Vista uses 40% CPU time for simple file transfers - up from 15% in XP and 9% in Linux. This proves that the design deision to rewrite the BSD-stack was a flawed approach, and not a BUG

Secondly, it is not necessary to probe the audio hardware and software 30 times a second, as is done in Vista. That overload on system resources is again not a bug, it is DEFECTIVE BY DESIGN .

Unless Microsoft can demonstrate superior performance with Vista on identical hardware, users will conclude that DRM is such a burden on resources, and avoid using Vista as long as they practically can. This isn't FUD, it's FACT.

blind free market faith

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

Rubbish: "...giving the buyer the opportunity to choose not to purchase it."

This is no good when the manufacturers form a cartel and decide that all devices will be locked this way, or when the content industry forms and decides that content will only be available for devices locked this way.

Then the free market can no longer express what the people want.

Re:blind free market faith

[Kjella]

Even if every device was locked down and every copy DRM'd and the analog hole closed and the whole thing worked and was secure and perfect and piracy was stomped out of existance and people couldn't even protest by choosing looser DRM over tighter, people could protest by not buying.

There used to be a time when protesting means that you had to forsake something. I wonder when it changed to mean that you still want to get everything you want, with a side order of protest.

Re:FTFA

[ultranova]

Did I mention they're working on a fix? Ah, I did, but you didn't bold that bit.

I find it highly unlikely that they can fix this. After all, if they could, why ship with the reduced performance in the first place - remember, the network performance reduction was put on place intentionally as a hack to get around other flaws. Also, let's not forget that they also worked on WinFS for years, and still failed to deliver. Finally, Microsoft has a reputation of saying anything to help drive sales; in other words, they could be lying.

Re:FTFA

[cronot]

[...] users will conclude that DRM is such a burden on resources, and avoid using Vista as long as they practically can. This isn't FUD, it's FACT.

You give too much credit to users.

No, users won't avoid using Vista because of performance or DRM issues, because Vista comes/will come preinstalled with their shiny new computer that, being faster than their old computer, will mask the relative lack of performance Vista has compared to XP. As for DRM, many will be pissed, sure, but they won't go through the hassle of crying foul on this because most of them aren't as educated as we are to know how much they are being screwed and abused, so they will think that's just how things are supposed to be and cope.

The fact that Vista will come preinstalled on new computers also means that, for the very few that won't be willing to take all the bullshit, they will have to buy a new copy of Windows XP - which won't be in the market for too long now, so that means that when XP stops being sold, they will be faced with the decision of either migrating to another OS (OSX or Linux) or bearing with Vista. Again, guess what the majority of that (already small percentage of people who won't accept MS's and media industry's bullshit) people will do? Hint: What they are more used to / more confortable with?

Re:FTFA

[pipatron]

It means that it has been designed to actually limit performance for no technical reasons at all. Precisely what they have done here, with DRM.

EULA for media?

[schwit1]

"In the future, a content provider might choose to constrict the output to these devices, but that decision would apply only to a specific piece of media, and it would have to be disclosed on the package, giving the buyer the opportunity to choose not to purchase it." Says who? Software doesn't have its EULA on the outside of the box, why would this stuff?

So That's a Yes Then?

[segedunum]

Vista will indeed display HD content on this monitor over the D-Sub and component video outputs, which are capable of outputting 1080p and 1080i signals, respectively. In the future, a content provider might choose to constrict the output to these devices, but that decision would apply only to a specific piece of media, and it would have to be disclosed on the package, giving the buyer the opportunity to choose not to purchase it.

So that's a yes then. In the event that special content gets displayed on Vista there is a DRM subsystem all ready and waiting to restrict it.

He's also debunking silly things like stupidly large monitors, and he fills an entire page with it:

So, this is "stupidly large (for a computer monitor)"? Not if you're planning to install it in an airport or an office lobby

Well no, but it is a daft size for the vast majority of people, as indicated when he wrote 'computer monitor'. You devoted a whole page to this?

Regarding code signing:

That sounds awful, doesn't it? If you own a hardware company you are completely at Microsoft's mercy, and if they decide not to approve your drivers, or just delay their approval, you'll starve to death. Too bad Gutmann is completely wrong. He is confusing digital signatures with the Windows Logo process administered by Microsoft's Windows Hardware Quality Labs (WHQL).

Again, he uses an incredible sleight of hand here. He doesn't deny that certificate signing is required, and talks about buying a certificate, which he notes are not controlled by Microsoft but are listed on Microsoft's site:

Anyone can get a software publishing certificate from the independent certification companies listed here, none of which is owned or controlled by Microsoft. I found a suitable certificate for $229.

Bottom line, ergo, you have to have a signed driver for use in the kernel one way or the other. He doesn't deny that at all, and it's an incredible piece of trying to tell us that the emperor is actually wearing clothes.

This is completely, unequivocally wrong. I've tested multiple systems, using HDMI, DVI, and analog outputs for video and TOSLink and coax connections for digital audio. There's no problem playing back HD video and listening to the accompanying audio over this type of connection.

Notice that he doesn't tell us what content he has tested here, nor does he deny that there is a DRM subsystem in Vista preventing playback on certain outputs given certain content.

Arguably the most popular HD DVD player, Microsoft's Xbox 360 drive, which also works on a Windows PC, has only component connections, in fact.

I don't know what kind of a rebuttal this is supposed to be, but you don't need HDMI for gaming as Microsoft has stated. However, Microsoft have not ruled out providing a HDMI pack which inevitably would include content protection for certain kinds of content. He doesn't deny this.

Wow, polling the underlying hardware every 30 ms? What a taxing demand on a modern PC! That's more than 30 separate instructions that have to be processed every single second! That will impose a tremendous drag on performance, won't it? Oh. Wait. I just looked it up. An entry-level dual-core CPU running at 2.0 GHz or higher

He doesn't deny anything here, but merely tells us that a modern PC can handle all this.

Vista's playback architecture checks the integrity of the video subsystem as part of the process of sending each video frame to the display. If there's a problem with the video subsystem, you'll know about it right away and be able to troubleshoot it. There, that's not nearly as scary, is it?

Depends on how you word it ;-). Why does Vista need to 'check the integrity of the vi

Ad hominem

[Riba]

So, rather than dismissing claims of Vistas dystopian DRM-landscape they just make ad hominem attacks on mr Gutmann and his work. Right. Now move along , nothing to see here, especially if you're using Vista. :-)

Re:FTFA

[clickety6]

in other words, they could be lying.

I take strong exception to your statement that Microsoft could be lying and I think you should withdraw that remark immediately... or at least cross out the word "could".

Re:FTFA

[plague3106]

Also, the article summary attacks Guttman for claiming that HD can't be played over an analog port. Both are wrong here. DRMed HD can currently be played over an analog port because few discs enable the ICT (Image Constraint Token), but it's just a matter of time before the ICT starts getting flipped on and analog outputs start going to half resolution. I've heard rumors that some cable systems enable ICT for all cable content already.

Um, how is this MS' fault though? By building a system to conform to specifications? If you want to blame somebody, blame the studios.

No. No. and No.

[Puls4r]

Let's get something straight regarding consumers. They are stupid. You know it, I know it, hell, even they know it. Saying that it will be on the "media" and that consumers will have a choice to buy it is sycophantic at the least, and dishonest if you examine it closer.

An excellent for-instance is the "secur-disc" technology that prevents copying. Go look at one of these boxes in Best-Buy. You will discover that "secur-disc" will prevent unauthorized copy of your copyrighted data to keep you safe! They don't mention that the average joe doesn't copyright or protect his DVD's. Nor do they mention that secur-disk invalidates the point of purchasing a dvd "Burner" - to copy DVD's, rip media, etc.

The technology was not put there to protect the consumer. The technology was not put there to simply "sit" and not be used. It was put there because hardware and media companies are demanding it. What is the alternative if you want a DVD and the only versions that have been released have this technology on them? You have none, aside from simply not watching the movie.

To go one step further, the average consumer doesn't read those labels, any more than the average consumer reads a Eula, or reads the FBI warning at the beginning of a DVD. You could claim that it is the consumers fault if they are not informed. I would beg to differ. In this day in age, everything from buying a Turkey sandwich at the local gas station to purchasing a game online has so many licensing agreements, privacy policy sign-offs, warnings, and other various "messages" that no one in public will ever look at them. We are so deluged with the warnings, messages, and reminders that we tune them out the same way we do commericals on TV - you simply have no choice.

Finally, nine consumers out of 10 don't know HDMI from component to DVI. They expect to be able to purchase a TV system and get a great picture - or purchase a computer and watch their movie. They aren't going to understand that if that particular media has a particular label on it then they need a specific DVD-rom drive, cable, monitor/lcd, etc for the anti-copying quality degradation to be prevented.

They need to do the smart thing. Ignore Vista. Stop buying movies and CD's. Stop going to the movies. Teach these people that they don't own you - it's the other way around.

Re:Passing the buck...

[jedidiah]

Microsoft has the clout.

The "OWN" the desktop. They could have told the studios what to go do with themselves.

Microsoft added this DRM crap because they want to. They want to use this crap for their own agenda. They want to abuse the end users the same way.

It's like Satan making a deal with Hades.

Funny

[bogie]

First off never trust someone who makes their living off of Microsoft products to give you an honest opinion about Microsoft. Ie Bott is without a doubt a shill for Microsoft. Got that? Good.

Now with regards to what I thought was funny. It's funny that Microsoft had to drop WinFS and other technologies from Vista because they either ran out of time or couldn't get them to work. Yet they had no problem what so ever tightly integrating DRM into every single nook and cranny of Vista. It is sadly apparent that from day one Vista was designed to treat the user as a criminal and treat the Entertainment industry as the customer and overlord of your computer. That Mr. Bott is the reason for the shitstorm about Vista and its DRM. All of your talk about "not turned on yet" and "doesn't impact your computer much" is cold comfort after what we have discovered about about Vista and DRM. Don't you get that?

If it CAN be done it WILL be done

[Jtheletter]

Just like how Tivo used to have a 30 second skip button. Then it was disabled, but don't worry you can always enter the "secret code" to make it work again. Until they removed that functionality as well.

Just like how DVD producers *could* disable skip and menu buttons before letting you get to the disc menu, but don't worry, they won't do that except for things like copyright legal notices. Until some DVDs started forcing you to sit through all the previews on the disc, even if they're years out of date.

Just like how income tax was a temporary measure to fund the war, don't worry, they'll never make it permanent. Until now when we have taxes withheld automatically and the only argument seems to be should that amount go up slightly or down slightly.

Power to control is always argued in terms of slight increases for temporary times or only mild inconvenience, but eventually once it is in place and the sheep are used to it, it inevitably is used for that which we feared. I should point out I'm NOT trying to equate Vista DRM with government erosion of rights, those are rather different in scope and morality. However examples of restriction-creep abound, I merely pointed out 3 to illustrate my point.

Re:FTFA

[beuges]

http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2007/08/28/windows-vista-sound-causes-network-throughput-slowdowns.aspx

Straight from a senior developer at MS who worked mostly on the audio system in Vista.

Summary version: they ARE fixing it, because it IS a bug and NOT an intentional hack.

Re:FTFA

[Digz]

Microsoft... be lying?!? But Talk Like a Pirate Day isn't til tomorrow!!! :)

Re:FTFA

[Alsee]

defective by design ... doesn't that imply that the designers chose a defective design on purpose?

I'm quite prepared to agree that M$ can't design a good piece of X to save their Y, but I'd have to know the individual designers to be able to claim that they designed something like video streaming in such a broken fashion on purpose.

There is no pro-fuctional purpose in probing the audio and/or video hardware 30 times per second. The only reason it is done is because the order came down from on high that DRM Shall Be Implemented and that system performance Shall Be Sacrificed in the attempt to enforce the DRM.

DRM's sole purpose is to reduce the functionality of the computer, and probing the audio and/or video hardware 30 times per second is done for the sole reason of attempting to actively combat the owner of the computer if he attempts to get the computer to function in his desired manner.

So yeah, it's defective by design. They deliberately chose a design that places an extra load on system performance to ensure that system functionality remains diminished.

-

Re:Thread hijack

[rawler]

Well, actually, he doesn't need to prove it. Nomatter what the DVD were set to, what laptop, what software or what the current moonphase was.

DRM, nomatter why, prevented this user to play an (according to him) legit DVD. It doesn't matter whether the laptop were purchased and configured in China, and the CD purchased in France. (Say, a Chinese studying in France, bringing his laptop with him) It's fully legit, but the very notion of DRM (specifically locking content to regions) prevented this user from viewing the film he claims to have purchased fair and square.

The problem here is not that it is not POSSIBLE to watch the DVD given the right circumstances. The problem is the DRM gives a worsened user experience. It's intended to prevent users from doing what they want, and it's always going to fail both ways.

Re:Whole article, not 5 pages

[billcopc]

An entry-level dual-core CPU 2.0 GHz or higher (the target for most video playback applications) can typically process a minimum of 14 billion instructions per second

Please correct me if my 22 years of machine code programming have me in the wrong, but if a CPU runs at 2.0ghz, doesn't that set the upper limit at uhm (counts on fingers) 2 billion instructions per second ? Double it for dual-core. That would be the maximum, and not all instructions complete in a single cycle. Throw in some fetch latency and memory delays, with a healthy dose of I/O spinlocks and pathetic high-level interpreted code, and those 2 billion ops whittle down to maybe 500-700 million actual operations assuming a typical home-user mix of applications.

See the thing with computers, they're reeeeally fast in their own mind. It's in dealing with the outside world (hardware) that things slow down to a crawl. Polling a graphics or sound device 30 times per second, over an already-congested system bus, might not take your system down, but that doesn't mean it's not a huge waste of performance, effort and mindshare.

Heck, remember a while back when people had 200-300mhz systems, and they added a crappy WinModem to the mix which chewed up every last cycle to process a puny little 16khz signal. Just the same, a small polling loop running at 30hz, times every piece of "trusted" hardware in your system, might not add up to much on paper, but in practice it is an undesirable blip in the timing loop, serving only to appease the dirty bastards whose business model has long been obsolete.

Re:Whole article, not 5 pages

[greginnj]

Gutmann is a clever writer, and he's able to string together nouns, verbs, technical terms,and acronyms in ways that sound persuasive. In this three-part series [...] I'm going to dig deep into Gutmann's work and show you just where he got it wrong.

It should be illegal to string together nouns, verbs, technical terms,and acronyms in ways that sound persuasive.

Re:They might do WHAT?

[Master of Transhuman]

"if you do you probably have to run legal risks downloading it"

Right - like anybody cares. Of all the RIAA suits, what percentage of downloaders are affected? .00000000001 percent?

The point is you only need ONE GENIUS with the right equipment (which, being a genius, he already owns) to rip or strip DRM out of ANYTHING.

Once that one copy is made and put up on the Net ANYWHERE, if it is at all interesting to any significant number of people it will be EVERYWHERE in a matter of days or weeks. It may indeed be hard to find, but that depends on how bad you want it. I've spent quite some time looking for ebooks I wanted on the Net. If I don't find them now, I'll find them later when they've spread a little farther through the Net.

None of this "well, they can make it harder" crap matters. The cost/benefit is simply not there for the consumer. It might be there for the media producer, if he can prove that the problems the DRM cause the consumers do not cause him to lose sales or handle complaints greater than the cost of the DRM. But the consumer is still harmed.

It's fundamentally an anti-customer practice to treat all customers like they are criminals. Most companies in most industries assume a certain degree of fraudulent behavior in their customers and adjust their prices to deal with it without reflecting on the other consumers (despite the fact that the other consumers are paying more because of it.) This is the correct approach. Attempting to restrict the customer's behavior a priori up front is just stupid. It causes problems for the legit customers and does little to restrict the truly fraudulent customers.

"Trusted TCPA" systems WILL be either hacked or bypassed. Anybody with the right tools and physical access to the device - our GENIUS has both - will succeed sooner or later. And there will be a market for PCs without all that crap, manufactured by underground shops in Pakistan, if no where else. And that will be what our GENIUS will use if he has to.

Also, keep in mind that many of these crackers aren't in it for the money, they're in it to see if they can do it and for the egoboo of doing it. Which means it doesn't matter to them if they can crack it in a day, a month or a year. What matters is that they will keep trying until they do. Which means "cost/benefit" isn't even in the equation.

And once they have, it's over.

Give it up. It's a hopeless endeavor.