What part of "someone will meet that demand" do you disbelieve?
Firstly, that there's going to be sufficient "demand" in the first place.
Secondly, that "someone" is actually going to be able to step in and meet it.
And why is it that you disbelieve it for media and not for hardware?
Because the hardware is a commodity.
(From a certain perspective, so is the content - but most people will argue quite fiercely that their favourites song/tv show/movie is very different to all the others).
You know nothing about international entertainment, where the producers are not the MPAA and yet are so popular that their products routinely cross language, social and ethnic barriers for tens of millions of viewers.
Oh, I've got a rough idea, and I'm pretty sure "pop culture" utterly swamps it in terms of demand.
Prove it. Just what "premium content" is it?
All those movies that are going to be (re-)released on HD-DVD are probably the best example. The ones you're going to need to buy a new TV (to get 1080p), new sound system (to get whatever version of Dolby or THX they're up to) and new HD-DVD player to actually watch. Then there's going to be the new "Real HD capable" (or whatever they call it) set-top boxes for freeo-to-air and pay TV. Etc, etc.
The _other_ main purpose of DRM is so you can be resold the same content again in a different format, probably in one that will require you to buy more hardware (= licensing fees) to acquire. Demand for this "new" content is going to be high and people aren't going to be interested in buying hardware that can't play it.
Those laws exist today, yet the chinese are busted so rarely that it makes news when it happens CSS and macrovision are just as DMCA worthy as AACS, as 2600 can attest.
The landscape (legally, politically and technically) has changed since the DVD was first released 10-odd years ago.
Name it. You are so convinced of it, lets see it. Here's your bone:
Name what ?
I'll tell you right now that it isn't the content on HD and BD that won't play back, it is the hardware. The hardware without fully-implemented secure path drivers will not render it all. But on XP it renders it just fine.
"Specifically, what content are you talking about" is such a simple question. Why are you so reluctant to answer it ? What DRM-infested video have you got that plays back at full quality in XP but not in Vista ?
Oh, please... Don't do this. I've just read through some of your previous comments and, judging by them, if you're being serious then you're clearly attempting to bait me.
No, I'm not.
People keep insisting there is some platform out there that will play future, DRM-encumbered content at full quality, even in the absence of DRM-compliant hardware (eg: without HDCP). I don't believe this is possible and no-one has been able to provide a convincing argument (or examples) why it will.
You're well aware that there are other platforms which display high grade content and do not 'deliberately degrade' additional concurrent content simply because of DRM controls (and their taking away of a chunk of computing power).
Vista only degrades the content that is DRM-encumbered. Your "medical imagery" (to use the example that the FUD has been) will be unaffected even if the DRM-encumbered movie you happen to be watching is degraded.
And Vista could do it too were not it so beholden to those who wish to further tighten their grip and further limit consumer use of content. The hardware certainly can handle it (good god it ought to, considering the requirements).
Vista does not in any way restrict you from watching (or hearing) high definition content unless a) it has DRM on it and b) your system does not have DRM-compliant hardware. Additionally, Vista does not degrade the output of any content other than that which is DRM-encumbered. AS EXPLAINED IN THE LINKED ARTICLE.
I watched an HD demo about a particular graphics app while running that hi-end graphics app (which includes motion video) and listening to music (I was interested in what the demo was doing, not saying) on my laptop the other day. On a plane. On battery power. The only thing degraded was my legroom as I was in coach.
Wouldn't have been any different if you'd be using Vista.
You keep saying it, it is still stupid. Its the equivalent of saying that if Mercedes-Benz wants to start building electric cars, that they have to cater to the whims of the battery manufacturers when in reality its the battery manufacturers that need to figure out how to make their product attractive to Mercedes.
This is a somewhat reasonable analogy, but you have the protagonists back to front.
The RIAA, MPAA and co are the ones who have the position of power, here, because they have the product the other parties want access to. People are still going to be able to get at their premium content, even if Vista (or others) can't play it.
I am stunned that you would so wilfully misunderstand my point as to confuse content creators with hardware manufacturers.
Are you seriously trying to suggest the current media oligopoly's market position could be threatened in the near future ?
But just to humor you - why do you think those chinese manufacturers are going to give two shits about DRM?
Because if they don't, their products won't sell in the massive consumerist societies of the western world, where DRM-encumbered content is going to be the norm in around a decade and on "premium content" (the stuff that drives sales of fancy new equipment) much sooner. *That's* assuming laws like the DCMA even give them the option of selling DRM-less hardware in the future.
They don't even pay the $20/unit patent royalties on the DVD players they manufacture by the boatload today and it is standard for them to include overrides for the DRM of DVDs - macrovision disable, region-coding disable, no-skip disable.
You can't really compare inadequate schemes like CSS and macrovision with modern DRM.
I get it now -- You don't have a clue how vista works. That's why you keep waving meangingless points around. Figure out how PVP-OPM, PVP-UAB, PUMA and PAP work and their side-effects and then you might understand how they are bad. Here's a big hint - the BD/HD versions of WinDVD and PowerDVD work differently under vista than they do under XP. Same programs, different code paths. There is no "NOW" media vs "IN THE FUTURE" media - it is all blu-ray and hd-dvd.
Yes, there is. I note you *still* haven't answered any of the questions I posed. What "premium content" do you have now that plays back in full quality in WinDVD on XP but not in Vista ?
Oh, please... Don't do this. I've just read through some of your previous comments and, judging by them, if you're being serious then you're clearly attempting to bait me.
No, I'm not.
People keep insisting there is some platform out there that will play future, DRM-encumbered content at full quality, even in the absence of DRM-compliant hardware (eg: without HDCP). I don't believe this is possible and no-one has been able to provide a convincing argument (or examples) why it will.
You're well aware that there are other platforms which display high grade content and do not 'deliberately degrade' additional concurrent content simply because of DRM controls (and their taking away of a chunk of computing power).
Vista only degrades the content that is DRM-encumbered. Your "medical imagery" (to use the example that the FUD has been) will be unaffected even if the DRM-encumbered movie you happen to be watching is degraded.
And Vista could do it too were not it so beholden to those who wish to further tighten their grip and further limit consumer use of content. The hardware certainly can handle it (good god it ought to, considering the requirements).
Vista does not in any way restrict you from watching (or hearing) high definition content unless a) it has DRM on it and b) your system does not have DRM-compliant hardware. Additionally, Vista does not degrade the output of any content other than that which is DRM-encumbered. AS EXPLAINED IN THE LINKED ARTICLE.
I watched an HD demo about a particular graphics app while running that hi-end graphics app (which includes motion video) and listening to music (I was interested in what the demo was doing, not saying) on my laptop the other day. On a plane. On battery power. The only thing degraded was my legroom as I was in coach.
Which is it to be? Can the free market come up with a better solution than government granted monopolies, or can't it? take your pick, but please don't argue both sides so close together.
"Better" for whom ? Buyers or sellers ? Seldom do both agree on what is "better".
You say that the free market can come up with a better solution. You say that solution would be good DRM. then you say they don't want a better solution becuase the worse solution is better for them?
"Worse" is a matter of perspective. From the media companies' perspective, copyright law is a much better solution than anything the market could produce, because it's a) monopolistic and b) enforced for free by the government.
Can you explain? (Now, it could be that the ones wanting the laws are not free market proponents, but they do trot out the "let the market decide" meme from time to time don't they?
I doubt many people riding the copyright gravy train trot out "let the market decide" (and actually mean it) very often. Most of them aren't under any illusions market forces will give them a better result than the government-enforced monopoly of copyright.
Hmmm. I wonder why they keep going back for more and more laws then? Why not ask for copyright to be done away with and go with market based solutions?
Firstly, because DRM would eventually be broken by professional "pirates", even if the average consumer never saw a major benefit from it.
Secondly, because only the law allows you to sue for damages, etc. DRM does not. The best DRM gives a content producer is time - Copyright gives them means to retaliate.
So, what? Your premise was that it HAD to be done that there was no "actual alternative of a "full-quality experience" _without_ DRM-capable software and hardware."
My premise is that the media companies said they won't be publishing their content on platforms that don't have suitable (to them) "anti-piracy" features and, therefore, anyone who wants to introduce products that will support the playback of such content will have to implement the restrictions dictated.
You've now backtracked to "some pretty major players" in the computer industry think it had to be done.
No, I've pointed out that some rather major players in the computer industry are trying to move into the entertainment device market, somewhere they current have little presence.
Which is my entire point - they think it because they are suckers. Their own revenues show that it isn't necessary.
As I keep saying, revenue from selling business desktops, servers, embedded devices and the like is completely and utterly irrelevant if you're trying to compare to, say, DVD players and set top boxes.
Really? That must be why mp3 players were selling for nearly a decade before there was any significant buy in from the "people selling the content."
Which, given you can turn any audio you already have into an MP3, had the support (albeit indirectly) of the content providers. Not to mention MP3 players were a niche market at best until the iPod gained popularity.
No equivalent pre-existing source for HD-DVD and the like is apparent, and the point of DRM is to make sure one doesn't materialise.
The way it works is - if there is demand, SOMEONE will meet it. If the established players aren't willing to do so, then new ones will jump in instead. Content creators, their entire product being discretionary, need the buyers to survive, the buyers don't need the content to survive.
I am stunned you have finally managed to grasp this point. I've been trying to make it for some time now.
The "someone" who will "meet the need" if platforms like Vista don't have DRM will be the same ones that are meeting most of it now - standalone DVD players and the like churned out by the boatload from China.
For some reason I am unable to grasp, you seem to be under the impression that consumers use Windows PCs to access premium content, or they won't access it - ie: that PCs already have a commanding presence in the market for media consumption. From that mistaken assumption, you seem to have concluded that Microsoft have some sort of significant influence over the media companies, by virtue of having some sort of control over whether or not people can access content. The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of content gets to consumers via standalone devices like DVD players, radios, TVs and the like. *That* is the market Vista is trying to penetrate and why it needs to have DRM to do so.
As your position degrades you keep trying to twist the argument into something neither you nor I originally said. I said it "would not matter" for the purposes of effective DRM.
"Effective" in what sense ? All DRM has to do is make copying the content people want to consume marginally inconvenient (such that just going out and getting it "legitimately" appears to be "cheaper") and it has done its job.
So what if it STILL works under Vista?
Because it nullifies any criticism you can make with regards to Vista, DRM, output degredation and currently available content. If Vista plays DRM-encumbered media _today_ at full quality, then its "output degredation" is irrelevant to today's content.
The point is Vista is NOT NECESSARY.
For the content you have _NOW_, not for the content that will be released IN THE FUTURE.
(Although in all likelihood whatever-it-is doesn't actually have any DRM restrictions on it, thus making your example moot).
Really? A versioned filesystem can be MUCH more efficient than a backup because you can store diffs. If you make a minor change to a file, you don't store two copies of the file; you store one copy plus the change. If you back up that file, you need to store two copies. (Primary + backup.)
Lets try this again. THEY HAVE A MONOPOLY. THEY ARE THE ONLY PLAYER. It is impossible for Microsoft to gain a significant market growth through snazzy grabs like more multimedia content BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE THE ENTIRE MARKET. The only way Microsoft can increase their market is for the market itself to grow.
Microsoft most certainly do *not* have a monopoly in the market for devices used to access content. Indeed, the vast majority of content gets to consumers via devices that barely even qualify as computers, let alone general-purpose PCs.
If nobody uses their pc to listen to content as you say, then multimedia content availability isn't a selling point for pc's in the first place.
It is, just not a major one right now. This is something that Microsoft (and Apple) are trying to change, hence their actions regarding DRM and the like. It will become a more significant selling point in the future, as (hopefully) more people start accessing content via their "computers".
Your argument fails on that point alone. But even if the availability were a selling point, it ignores the fact that Microsoft's profits are not impacted by selling points. They have no competition. Their customers have to use their products whether they are worthwhile or not.
The "competition" is $150 DVD players from China, HDTV set-top-boxes and the like. Not other PCs.
First, it wouldn't be to Microsoft's credit that you had to go to the hardware to get around their system. Second, bypassing a copy control mechanism is a violation of the DMCA so I doubt hardware vendors will help you with this. Not bypassing the copy control mechanism would mean the hardware being honest with Vista about not having the capability, Vista either does not interoperate with devices that do not support the encryption or interoperates with them at an artificially reduced capacity. The most obvious example of this is display devices.
The reason you are unable to support your assertion is because you are stuck on the mistaken assumption that TPC == DRM.
All TCP does is allow the system to securely verify certain aspects of data it might be processing. What it chooses to do with that verification (or lack thereof) is independent of, and unrelated to, TCP. Apple, for example, will most likely use it in the future to determine whether or not OS X is running on a real Macintosh.
I have a negative view regarding the utility of doing RAID 0 or 1 (or 10 for that matter) in hardware. There's really no performance benefit since those controller chips sit right on a PCIe buss, and RAID 0 and 1 don't require anything of the CPU in terms of parity calculation nor do they have the downside of partial stripe writes at higher RAID levels.
The advantage is in transparency. Ie: you don't have to do any sort of additional funky configuration to make it work in a reliable fashion and your bootloader doesn't need to know about RAID arrays and the like to bring the system up.
You're also removing direct visibility of the disks from the OS, and I tend to think (through experience) that when it comes down to error detection and maintenance, you're better off doing all your mirroring/striping in one place, in software (eg; using SVM or ZFS).
Personally I prefer hardware RAID for the system files (for simplicity) and software RAID for data (for performance and reliability).
(The other thing that I wonder why other file systems haven't adopted is NTFS's alternate streams. They seem like they could be really useful for some stuff...)
Because while they're a great idea, they don't work very well as soon as another platform (without such capabilities) gets involved.
Windows NT 4 wasn't stable enough to be seriously used until SP5, and was blue screening like it was Windows ME until SP6 (if I remember well), at which point it was decent for working on.
NT4 on decent, non-exotic hardware was quite stable enough for full-time use from the late RC stage (much like every version of NT has been since). Over the ~5 years I used NT4 I had a grand total of 2 BSODs (out of maybe 8 in total) that weren't directly related to either a) hardware failure or b) buggy drivers.
Probably one of the biggest reasons NT4 managed to garner a relatively bad reputation for stability amongst enthusiasts was because its popularity was rising during the heyday of AMD's move into its own CPU designs and the subsequent flood of cheap, shitty motherboards built around buggy, unstable VIA chipsets.
Only large organizations can efficiently serve large populations. Governments certainly can't, go look to areas of the world beholden to government entities, most aren't anyplace you want to live. The primary reason is that governments don't have to get better and improve, they only have to maintain the status quo. Companies on the other hand grow because the people in charge want to succeed. This leads to innovations, more employment, better qualitiy of life, and yes more money.
Only large organizations can efficiently serve large populations. Companies certainly can't, go look to areas of the world beholden to corporate entities, most aren't anyplace you want to live. The primary reason is that companies don't have to get better and improve, they only have to maintain the status quo. Governments on the other hand grow because the people in charge don't want to get voted out. [etc].
Oh, but that evil money, where is it? Well the bulk of corporate wealth is held by retirement concerns, yup those evil teachers, firemen, police, and maybe even your coworkers are all part of the system.
Something like 95% of the wealth is concentrated in 2% of the population. While this ratio is probably better than it was, say, half a millenia ago, somehow I don't think that 2% is made up of teachers, firemen and police.
Sorry, its childish to apply human traits to something that is not alive. Its a form of organization, nothing more. It succeed because of individuals and it fails because of them too.
"It" succeeds because "it" is largely able to conduct itself in a manner that most _individuals_ would consider questionable, if not unacceptable.
Corporations insulate the people running them from the consequences of their actions. By doing so, they effectively encourage those people to act in the most cynical, selfish, rude and psychopathic manner possible.
Ironic that you use the word "childish" above, because that's essentially the manner in which most coporations conduct themselves - like children.
Much as most people believe in a right to "intellectual property", [...]
That the vast majority of people frequently and wilfully infringe on both the letter and principle (especially the principle) of copyright, suggests otherwise.
Actually, wouldn't a true free market proponent say that the market would be able to come up with an even better solution than the government granted monopolies that we have today?
It would. That solution would almost certainly be DRM that actually worked (or came a lot closer than it does now).
DRM exists today (from an anti-copying perspective) primarily to _inconvenience_ "pirates". It's not really meant to offer strong protection, because the _law_ does that and is able to do so far more effectively (in particularly, the law can actually enact punishments and recover "losses"). Were DRM the _only_ protection from copying media had, you can be assured that DRM schemes would be more invasive, more comprehensive and a lot harder to crack.
And you are claiming that would somehow put the music industry in a position to strongarm microsoft into DRM support?
Not would, _has_. They did the same thing to Apple. Why ? Because in that market, the content industry has the upper hand (although the popularity of the iPod put Apple in an unusually powerful position at the time - it probably won't happen again any time soon though).
If nobody is using their pc to view or listen to content then Microsoft would have even less interest in the issue.
Unless, of course, Microsoft would like to sell more copies of Windows for people to use to access content.
Since Microsoft profits aren't impacted by whether or not anyone ever purchases content for use on their PC I fail to see your argument here.
Current profits aren't. _Future_ profits are.
Trusted Computing is a digital rights support platform.
Trusted computing is a verification and authorisation platform. It can be used for DRM, but that is not its only (or arguably even primary) purpose.
Trusted computing will bar unauthorized (unauthorized by the vendor, not the user or pc owner) content from executing. All of the Vista DRM support is part of the trusted computing initiative.
TCP and DRM are different things. Additionally, you need to provide evidence for your assertion that TCP will not be able to be disabled at the hardware level.
And your point is apparently that this lack of uptake is significant. It ain't.
Maybe you need to tell the "computer industry" that, because some pretty major players seem to think it is, judging by the way they're aggressively trying to expand into that market space.
Did the whole AppleTV thing pass you by ? Never heard of the iTunes store selling TV shows ? Do Windows-based Media Centres not exist in your world ?
The computer industry got where it is today - an order of magnitude larger than hollywood - without playing their game. They do not need hollywood.
If they don't want to expand into that market space, of course they don't.
However, if they _do_ want to expand into the marketspace, they most certainly do. You can't have a content platform without the co-operation of the people selling the content.
So which is it? Hollywood thinks computers are important or hollywood doesn't think computers are important? You've now made arguments for both sides.
No, I haven't. You need to go back and read it all again.
Your awkward phrasing suggests you are trying to put words in my mouth apparently in an attempt at willful misunderstanding, yet that same awkward phrasing makes it impossible to figure out just what point you are trying to make. My point is very clear - WinDVD and PowerDVD HD/BD editions do not require Vista nor do they require Vista-level DRM in order to play back at full resolution. Ergo, Vista-level DRM is not necessary to convince Hollywood to 'allow' playback of HD content.
You say that Vista's DRM controls are not necessary for viewing so-called "premium content", because you can just grab a copy of WinDVD and experience it in all it's 1080p, 7.1 surround, digital glory. You further imply that this software will do so absent of DRM-laden hardware (eg: without HDCP capable video hardware).
I want to know what content you have, now, that will allow this in WinDVD (or similar), but not in Vista.
Furthermore, it would not matter if full resolution was or was not visible - the full resolution must be decoded before it can be down-scaled, the formats do not support anything even remotely resembling the selective decryption that would be necessary to only decode a low resolution version, so vulnerability of low-versus-high resolution is a moot point.
WTF ? Practically your whole argument is revolves around the fact that Vista degrades output quality to meet DRM restriction requirements imposed by the media companies, yet here you are saying such degredation of output "would not matter".
Make your damn mind up. Either Vista's DRM is the work of the devil because it degrades the output quality of your content, or the output quality of that content doesn't matter and Vista's output degredation is irrelevant.
I agree with you. The thing is, even if RightSaidFred99 over there thinks Intel is just as good at SMP configurations, it's only NOW just starting to become a reality.
And by "NOW", you mean "after AMD's brief stint at the top of the x86 [multiprocessor] heap, they've fallen behind again".
The "core" CPU is finally, after over 7 years, perhaps better then the current generation of AMD CPU's, [...]
"Current generation AMD CPUs" have only existed for about 3.5 years. Prior to that, intel held the crown in x86 multiprocessor systems. Prior to *that*, there weren't any multiprocessor x86 systems in existence.
Just because CPU's are going dual and multi-core, doesn't mean enterprise servers will ship with only one socket.
Mostly they will. Few server tasks are meaningfully bottlenecked by the CPU bus and multiple physical CPUs tend to disproportionately increase cost (not only for the hardware, but also for software licensing, which typicaly charges per physical CPU).
The only Sun x86 servers which are SATA-only are the low end X2100 and X2200. The rest (X4100 and up) are 2.5", 10k RPM SAS drives.
On the downside, the "RAID controllers" (I use the term loosely) in them are so basic they don't even support RAID10, let alone RAID5 or 6 (I was _not_ happy when we bought a few of them to discover this, and subsequently had to setup a RAID0 (hw) + RAID1 (sw) to compensate).
FFS. A bottom of the barrel 4-channel SATA "RAID" controller will typically support RAID10. To not find such functionality on supposedly enterprise-level equipment is ridiculous - and we won't be buying any more (especially now Dell has machines with the new Xeons).
Microsoft has all the leverage there. Windows media player?
No, they don't. Only a small minority of people use their Windows PCs to access the kind of content that's relevant to DRM.
Last I checked this is just another way to lock users into windows. Microsoft is a content provider, the content they provide is software. Microsoft had NO connection to music or video distribution when they began the trusted computing initiative.
If DRM was just upholding the copyright, I wouldn't mind it so much. However, it is used to extend copyright and deny users many rights that they should otherwise have.
As far as I know, in jurisdictions that have such a concept, "Fair Use" is a legal privilege (ie: dictated by legal precendents), not a "right" (ie: from something like a 'Bill of Rights').
The post I replied to was, sarcastically, saying that "less freedom = higher quality" - the implication clearly being that the highest quality [software] is reached in tandem with the highest level of freedom (by which I'd hazard a guess the poster is referring to the GPL, although he would be wrong in that assertion if he was).
My point is that by being constrained by "standards" - be they open or closed - developers clearly have less freedom. However, few on Slashdot would argue that conformance to [open] standards - ie: a loss in freedom - leads to lower quality. From the consumer perspective, few would argue that requiring, for example, hardware drivers to be tested before being "blessed" by a vendor would lead to lower quality, even thought it clearly results in "less freedom".
Let me get this straight: You think movie providers are in a position to "blacklist" a Microsoft operating system?
Pretty much. The vast majority of consumers do _not_ access most of their music/video/reading material via some device running Windows.
The movie industry could quite conceivably "blacklist" Windows such that full-quality content was never legally available on it. Most people would just cotninue to watch TV and movies via standalone devices.
No, the problem is the DMCA. DRM for these new formats has already been broken, and without that heinous law, It would be perfectly legal and possible for the computer to bypass it in order to allow the users to do things that are perfectly legal to do with a copyrighted work, regardless of whether or not you have the copyright holder's permission.
This is a dangerous line of reasoning to take, because it makes the assumption that DRM schemes will _always_ be "trivial" to circumvent.
Slashdot Mirror
What part of "someone will meet that demand" do you disbelieve?
Firstly, that there's going to be sufficient "demand" in the first place.
Secondly, that "someone" is actually going to be able to step in and meet it.
And why is it that you disbelieve it for media and not for hardware?
Because the hardware is a commodity.
(From a certain perspective, so is the content - but most people will argue quite fiercely that their favourites song/tv show/movie is very different to all the others).
You know nothing about international entertainment, where the producers are not the MPAA and yet are so popular that their products routinely cross language, social and ethnic barriers for tens of millions of viewers.
Oh, I've got a rough idea, and I'm pretty sure "pop culture" utterly swamps it in terms of demand.
Prove it. Just what "premium content" is it?
All those movies that are going to be (re-)released on HD-DVD are probably the best example. The ones you're going to need to buy a new TV (to get 1080p), new sound system (to get whatever version of Dolby or THX they're up to) and new HD-DVD player to actually watch. Then there's going to be the new "Real HD capable" (or whatever they call it) set-top boxes for freeo-to-air and pay TV. Etc, etc.
The _other_ main purpose of DRM is so you can be resold the same content again in a different format, probably in one that will require you to buy more hardware (= licensing fees) to acquire. Demand for this "new" content is going to be high and people aren't going to be interested in buying hardware that can't play it.
Those laws exist today, yet the chinese are busted so rarely that it makes news when it happens CSS and macrovision are just as DMCA worthy as AACS, as 2600 can attest.
The landscape (legally, politically and technically) has changed since the DVD was first released 10-odd years ago.
Name it. You are so convinced of it, lets see it. Here's your bone:
Name what ?
I'll tell you right now that it isn't the content on HD and BD that won't play back, it is the hardware. The hardware without fully-implemented secure path drivers will not render it all. But on XP it renders it just fine.
"Specifically, what content are you talking about" is such a simple question. Why are you so reluctant to answer it ? What DRM-infested video have you got that plays back at full quality in XP but not in Vista ?
Oh, please... Don't do this. I've just read through some of your previous comments and, judging by them, if you're being serious then you're clearly attempting to bait me.
No, I'm not.
People keep insisting there is some platform out there that will play future, DRM-encumbered content at full quality, even in the absence of DRM-compliant hardware (eg: without HDCP). I don't believe this is possible and no-one has been able to provide a convincing argument (or examples) why it will.
You're well aware that there are other platforms which display high grade content and do not 'deliberately degrade' additional concurrent content simply because of DRM controls (and their taking away of a chunk of computing power).
Vista only degrades the content that is DRM-encumbered. Your "medical imagery" (to use the example that the FUD has been) will be unaffected even if the DRM-encumbered movie you happen to be watching is degraded.
And Vista could do it too were not it so beholden to those who wish to further tighten their grip and further limit consumer use of content. The hardware certainly can handle it (good god it ought to, considering the requirements).
Vista does not in any way restrict you from watching (or hearing) high definition content unless a) it has DRM on it and b) your system does not have DRM-compliant hardware. Additionally, Vista does not degrade the output of any content other than that which is DRM-encumbered. AS EXPLAINED IN THE LINKED ARTICLE.
I watched an HD demo about a particular graphics app while running that hi-end graphics app (which includes motion video) and listening to music (I was interested in what the demo was doing, not saying) on my laptop the other day. On a plane. On battery power. The only thing degraded was my legroom as I was in coach.
Wouldn't have been any different if you'd be using Vista.
You keep saying it, it is still stupid. Its the equivalent of saying that if Mercedes-Benz wants to start building electric cars, that they have to cater to the whims of the battery manufacturers when in reality its the battery manufacturers that need to figure out how to make their product attractive to Mercedes.
This is a somewhat reasonable analogy, but you have the protagonists back to front.
The RIAA, MPAA and co are the ones who have the position of power, here, because they have the product the other parties want access to. People are still going to be able to get at their premium content, even if Vista (or others) can't play it.
I am stunned that you would so wilfully misunderstand my point as to confuse content creators with hardware manufacturers.
Are you seriously trying to suggest the current media oligopoly's market position could be threatened in the near future ?
But just to humor you - why do you think those chinese manufacturers are going to give two shits about DRM?
Because if they don't, their products won't sell in the massive consumerist societies of the western world, where DRM-encumbered content is going to be the norm in around a decade and on "premium content" (the stuff that drives sales of fancy new equipment) much sooner. *That's* assuming laws like the DCMA even give them the option of selling DRM-less hardware in the future.
They don't even pay the $20/unit patent royalties on the DVD players they manufacture by the boatload today and it is standard for them to include overrides for the DRM of DVDs - macrovision disable, region-coding disable, no-skip disable.
You can't really compare inadequate schemes like CSS and macrovision with modern DRM.
I get it now -- You don't have a clue how vista works. That's why you keep waving meangingless points around. Figure out how PVP-OPM, PVP-UAB, PUMA and PAP work and their side-effects and then you might understand how they are bad. Here's a big hint - the BD/HD versions of WinDVD and PowerDVD work differently under vista than they do under XP. Same programs, different code paths. There is no "NOW" media vs "IN THE FUTURE" media - it is all blu-ray and hd-dvd.
Yes, there is. I note you *still* haven't answered any of the questions I posed. What "premium content" do you have now that plays back in full quality in WinDVD on XP but not in Vista ?
Oh, please... Don't do this. I've just read through some of your previous comments and, judging by them, if you're being serious then you're clearly attempting to bait me.
No, I'm not.
People keep insisting there is some platform out there that will play future, DRM-encumbered content at full quality, even in the absence of DRM-compliant hardware (eg: without HDCP). I don't believe this is possible and no-one has been able to provide a convincing argument (or examples) why it will.
You're well aware that there are other platforms which display high grade content and do not 'deliberately degrade' additional concurrent content simply because of DRM controls (and their taking away of a chunk of computing power).
Vista only degrades the content that is DRM-encumbered. Your "medical imagery" (to use the example that the FUD has been) will be unaffected even if the DRM-encumbered movie you happen to be watching is degraded.
And Vista could do it too were not it so beholden to those who wish to further tighten their grip and further limit consumer use of content. The hardware certainly can handle it (good god it ought to, considering the requirements).
Vista does not in any way restrict you from watching (or hearing) high definition content unless a) it has DRM on it and b) your system does not have DRM-compliant hardware. Additionally, Vista does not degrade the output of any content other than that which is DRM-encumbered. AS EXPLAINED IN THE LINKED ARTICLE. I watched an HD demo about a particular graphics app while running that hi-end graphics app (which includes motion video) and listening to music (I was interested in what the demo was doing, not saying) on my laptop the other day. On a plane. On battery power. The only thing degraded was my legroom as I was in coach.
Which is it to be? Can the free market come up with a better solution than government granted monopolies, or can't it? take your pick, but please don't argue both sides so close together.
"Better" for whom ? Buyers or sellers ? Seldom do both agree on what is "better".
You say that the free market can come up with a better solution. You say that solution would be good DRM. then you say they don't want a better solution becuase the worse solution is better for them?
"Worse" is a matter of perspective. From the media companies' perspective, copyright law is a much better solution than anything the market could produce, because it's a) monopolistic and b) enforced for free by the government.
Can you explain? (Now, it could be that the ones wanting the laws are not free market proponents, but they do trot out the "let the market decide" meme from time to time don't they?
I doubt many people riding the copyright gravy train trot out "let the market decide" (and actually mean it) very often. Most of them aren't under any illusions market forces will give them a better result than the government-enforced monopoly of copyright.
Hmmm. I wonder why they keep going back for more and more laws then? Why not ask for copyright to be done away with and go with market based solutions?
Firstly, because DRM would eventually be broken by professional "pirates", even if the average consumer never saw a major benefit from it.
Secondly, because only the law allows you to sue for damages, etc. DRM does not. The best DRM gives a content producer is time - Copyright gives them means to retaliate.
So, what? Your premise was that it HAD to be done that there was no "actual alternative of a "full-quality experience" _without_ DRM-capable software and hardware."
My premise is that the media companies said they won't be publishing their content on platforms that don't have suitable (to them) "anti-piracy" features and, therefore, anyone who wants to introduce products that will support the playback of such content will have to implement the restrictions dictated.
You've now backtracked to "some pretty major players" in the computer industry think it had to be done.
No, I've pointed out that some rather major players in the computer industry are trying to move into the entertainment device market, somewhere they current have little presence.
Which is my entire point - they think it because they are suckers. Their own revenues show that it isn't necessary.
As I keep saying, revenue from selling business desktops, servers, embedded devices and the like is completely and utterly irrelevant if you're trying to compare to, say, DVD players and set top boxes.
Really? That must be why mp3 players were selling for nearly a decade before there was any significant buy in from the "people selling the content."
Which, given you can turn any audio you already have into an MP3, had the support (albeit indirectly) of the content providers. Not to mention MP3 players were a niche market at best until the iPod gained popularity.
No equivalent pre-existing source for HD-DVD and the like is apparent, and the point of DRM is to make sure one doesn't materialise.
The way it works is - if there is demand, SOMEONE will meet it. If the established players aren't willing to do so, then new ones will jump in instead. Content creators, their entire product being discretionary, need the buyers to survive, the buyers don't need the content to survive.
I am stunned you have finally managed to grasp this point. I've been trying to make it for some time now.
The "someone" who will "meet the need" if platforms like Vista don't have DRM will be the same ones that are meeting most of it now - standalone DVD players and the like churned out by the boatload from China.
For some reason I am unable to grasp, you seem to be under the impression that consumers use Windows PCs to access premium content, or they won't access it - ie: that PCs already have a commanding presence in the market for media consumption. From that mistaken assumption, you seem to have concluded that Microsoft have some sort of significant influence over the media companies, by virtue of having some sort of control over whether or not people can access content. The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of content gets to consumers via standalone devices like DVD players, radios, TVs and the like. *That* is the market Vista is trying to penetrate and why it needs to have DRM to do so.
As your position degrades you keep trying to twist the argument into something neither you nor I originally said. I said it "would not matter" for the purposes of effective DRM.
"Effective" in what sense ? All DRM has to do is make copying the content people want to consume marginally inconvenient (such that just going out and getting it "legitimately" appears to be "cheaper") and it has done its job.
So what if it STILL works under Vista?
Because it nullifies any criticism you can make with regards to Vista, DRM, output degredation and currently available content. If Vista plays DRM-encumbered media _today_ at full quality, then its "output degredation" is irrelevant to today's content.
The point is Vista is NOT NECESSARY.
For the content you have _NOW_, not for the content that will be released IN THE FUTURE.
(Although in all likelihood whatever-it-is doesn't actually have any DRM restrictions on it, thus making your example moot).
FFS. Why is this so hard for you to under
Really? A versioned filesystem can be MUCH more efficient than a backup because you can store diffs. If you make a minor change to a file, you don't store two copies of the file; you store one copy plus the change. If you back up that file, you need to store two copies. (Primary + backup.)
This doesn't work so well with binary files.
Lets try this again. THEY HAVE A MONOPOLY. THEY ARE THE ONLY PLAYER. It is impossible for Microsoft to gain a significant market growth through snazzy grabs like more multimedia content BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE THE ENTIRE MARKET. The only way Microsoft can increase their market is for the market itself to grow.
Microsoft most certainly do *not* have a monopoly in the market for devices used to access content. Indeed, the vast majority of content gets to consumers via devices that barely even qualify as computers, let alone general-purpose PCs.
If nobody uses their pc to listen to content as you say, then multimedia content availability isn't a selling point for pc's in the first place.
It is, just not a major one right now. This is something that Microsoft (and Apple) are trying to change, hence their actions regarding DRM and the like. It will become a more significant selling point in the future, as (hopefully) more people start accessing content via their "computers".
Your argument fails on that point alone. But even if the availability were a selling point, it ignores the fact that Microsoft's profits are not impacted by selling points. They have no competition. Their customers have to use their products whether they are worthwhile or not.
The "competition" is $150 DVD players from China, HDTV set-top-boxes and the like. Not other PCs.
First, it wouldn't be to Microsoft's credit that you had to go to the hardware to get around their system. Second, bypassing a copy control mechanism is a violation of the DMCA so I doubt hardware vendors will help you with this. Not bypassing the copy control mechanism would mean the hardware being honest with Vista about not having the capability, Vista either does not interoperate with devices that do not support the encryption or interoperates with them at an artificially reduced capacity. The most obvious example of this is display devices.
The reason you are unable to support your assertion is because you are stuck on the mistaken assumption that TPC == DRM.
All TCP does is allow the system to securely verify certain aspects of data it might be processing. What it chooses to do with that verification (or lack thereof) is independent of, and unrelated to, TCP. Apple, for example, will most likely use it in the future to determine whether or not OS X is running on a real Macintosh.
I have a negative view regarding the utility of doing RAID 0 or 1 (or 10 for that matter) in hardware. There's really no performance benefit since those controller chips sit right on a PCIe buss, and RAID 0 and 1 don't require anything of the CPU in terms of parity calculation nor do they have the downside of partial stripe writes at higher RAID levels.
The advantage is in transparency. Ie: you don't have to do any sort of additional funky configuration to make it work in a reliable fashion and your bootloader doesn't need to know about RAID arrays and the like to bring the system up.
You're also removing direct visibility of the disks from the OS, and I tend to think (through experience) that when it comes down to error detection and maintenance, you're better off doing all your mirroring/striping in one place, in software (eg; using SVM or ZFS).
Personally I prefer hardware RAID for the system files (for simplicity) and software RAID for data (for performance and reliability).
(The other thing that I wonder why other file systems haven't adopted is NTFS's alternate streams. They seem like they could be really useful for some stuff...)
Because while they're a great idea, they don't work very well as soon as another platform (without such capabilities) gets involved.
Windows NT 4 wasn't stable enough to be seriously used until SP5, and was blue screening like it was Windows ME until SP6 (if I remember well), at which point it was decent for working on.
NT4 on decent, non-exotic hardware was quite stable enough for full-time use from the late RC stage (much like every version of NT has been since). Over the ~5 years I used NT4 I had a grand total of 2 BSODs (out of maybe 8 in total) that weren't directly related to either a) hardware failure or b) buggy drivers.
Probably one of the biggest reasons NT4 managed to garner a relatively bad reputation for stability amongst enthusiasts was because its popularity was rising during the heyday of AMD's move into its own CPU designs and the subsequent flood of cheap, shitty motherboards built around buggy, unstable VIA chipsets.
Only large organizations can efficiently serve large populations. Governments certainly can't, go look to areas of the world beholden to government entities, most aren't anyplace you want to live. The primary reason is that governments don't have to get better and improve, they only have to maintain the status quo. Companies on the other hand grow because the people in charge want to succeed. This leads to innovations, more employment, better qualitiy of life, and yes more money.
Only large organizations can efficiently serve large populations. Companies certainly can't, go look to areas of the world beholden to corporate entities, most aren't anyplace you want to live. The primary reason is that companies don't have to get better and improve, they only have to maintain the status quo. Governments on the other hand grow because the people in charge don't want to get voted out. [etc].
Oh, but that evil money, where is it? Well the bulk of corporate wealth is held by retirement concerns, yup those evil teachers, firemen, police, and maybe even your coworkers are all part of the system.
Something like 95% of the wealth is concentrated in 2% of the population. While this ratio is probably better than it was, say, half a millenia ago, somehow I don't think that 2% is made up of teachers, firemen and police.
Sorry, its childish to apply human traits to something that is not alive. Its a form of organization, nothing more. It succeed because of individuals and it fails because of them too.
"It" succeeds because "it" is largely able to conduct itself in a manner that most _individuals_ would consider questionable, if not unacceptable.
Corporations insulate the people running them from the consequences of their actions. By doing so, they effectively encourage those people to act in the most cynical, selfish, rude and psychopathic manner possible.
Ironic that you use the word "childish" above, because that's essentially the manner in which most coporations conduct themselves - like children.
Much as most people believe in a right to "intellectual property", [...]
That the vast majority of people frequently and wilfully infringe on both the letter and principle (especially the principle) of copyright, suggests otherwise.
Actually, wouldn't a true free market proponent say that the market would be able to come up with an even better solution than the government granted monopolies that we have today?
It would. That solution would almost certainly be DRM that actually worked (or came a lot closer than it does now).
DRM exists today (from an anti-copying perspective) primarily to _inconvenience_ "pirates". It's not really meant to offer strong protection, because the _law_ does that and is able to do so far more effectively (in particularly, the law can actually enact punishments and recover "losses"). Were DRM the _only_ protection from copying media had, you can be assured that DRM schemes would be more invasive, more comprehensive and a lot harder to crack.
And you are claiming that would somehow put the music industry in a position to strongarm microsoft into DRM support?
Not would, _has_. They did the same thing to Apple. Why ? Because in that market, the content industry has the upper hand (although the popularity of the iPod put Apple in an unusually powerful position at the time - it probably won't happen again any time soon though).
If nobody is using their pc to view or listen to content then Microsoft would have even less interest in the issue.
Unless, of course, Microsoft would like to sell more copies of Windows for people to use to access content.
Since Microsoft profits aren't impacted by whether or not anyone ever purchases content for use on their PC I fail to see your argument here.
Current profits aren't. _Future_ profits are.
Trusted Computing is a digital rights support platform.
Trusted computing is a verification and authorisation platform. It can be used for DRM, but that is not its only (or arguably even primary) purpose.
Trusted computing will bar unauthorized (unauthorized by the vendor, not the user or pc owner) content from executing. All of the Vista DRM support is part of the trusted computing initiative.
TCP and DRM are different things. Additionally, you need to provide evidence for your assertion that TCP will not be able to be disabled at the hardware level.
And your point is apparently that this lack of uptake is significant. It ain't.
Maybe you need to tell the "computer industry" that, because some pretty major players seem to think it is, judging by the way they're aggressively trying to expand into that market space.
Did the whole AppleTV thing pass you by ? Never heard of the iTunes store selling TV shows ? Do Windows-based Media Centres not exist in your world ?
The computer industry got where it is today - an order of magnitude larger than hollywood - without playing their game. They do not need hollywood.
If they don't want to expand into that market space, of course they don't.
However, if they _do_ want to expand into the marketspace, they most certainly do. You can't have a content platform without the co-operation of the people selling the content.
So which is it? Hollywood thinks computers are important or hollywood doesn't think computers are important? You've now made arguments for both sides.
No, I haven't. You need to go back and read it all again.
Your awkward phrasing suggests you are trying to put words in my mouth apparently in an attempt at willful misunderstanding, yet that same awkward phrasing makes it impossible to figure out just what point you are trying to make. My point is very clear - WinDVD and PowerDVD HD/BD editions do not require Vista nor do they require Vista-level DRM in order to play back at full resolution. Ergo, Vista-level DRM is not necessary to convince Hollywood to 'allow' playback of HD content.
You say that Vista's DRM controls are not necessary for viewing so-called "premium content", because you can just grab a copy of WinDVD and experience it in all it's 1080p, 7.1 surround, digital glory. You further imply that this software will do so absent of DRM-laden hardware (eg: without HDCP capable video hardware).
I want to know what content you have, now, that will allow this in WinDVD (or similar), but not in Vista.
Furthermore, it would not matter if full resolution was or was not visible - the full resolution must be decoded before it can be down-scaled, the formats do not support anything even remotely resembling the selective decryption that would be necessary to only decode a low resolution version, so vulnerability of low-versus-high resolution is a moot point.
WTF ? Practically your whole argument is revolves around the fact that Vista degrades output quality to meet DRM restriction requirements imposed by the media companies, yet here you are saying such degredation of output "would not matter".
Make your damn mind up. Either Vista's DRM is the work of the devil because it degrades the output quality of your content, or the output quality of that content doesn't matter and Vista's output degredation is irrelevant.
I agree with you. The thing is, even if RightSaidFred99 over there thinks Intel is just as good at SMP configurations, it's only NOW just starting to become a reality.
And by "NOW", you mean "after AMD's brief stint at the top of the x86 [multiprocessor] heap, they've fallen behind again".
The "core" CPU is finally, after over 7 years, perhaps better then the current generation of AMD CPU's, [...]
"Current generation AMD CPUs" have only existed for about 3.5 years. Prior to that, intel held the crown in x86 multiprocessor systems. Prior to *that*, there weren't any multiprocessor x86 systems in existence.
Just because CPU's are going dual and multi-core, doesn't mean enterprise servers will ship with only one socket.
Mostly they will. Few server tasks are meaningfully bottlenecked by the CPU bus and multiple physical CPUs tend to disproportionately increase cost (not only for the hardware, but also for software licensing, which typicaly charges per physical CPU).
The only Sun x86 servers which are SATA-only are the low end X2100 and X2200. The rest (X4100 and up) are 2.5", 10k RPM SAS drives.
On the downside, the "RAID controllers" (I use the term loosely) in them are so basic they don't even support RAID10, let alone RAID5 or 6 (I was _not_ happy when we bought a few of them to discover this, and subsequently had to setup a RAID0 (hw) + RAID1 (sw) to compensate).
FFS. A bottom of the barrel 4-channel SATA "RAID" controller will typically support RAID10. To not find such functionality on supposedly enterprise-level equipment is ridiculous - and we won't be buying any more (especially now Dell has machines with the new Xeons).
Nice options, but I really prefer to not use RAID 1 since it doesn't protect against filesystem corruption.
Huh ? This is like saying you don't wear a seatbelt because it doesn't protect against the engine catching fire...
Which platform is that?
Windows.
Microsoft has all the leverage there. Windows media player?
No, they don't. Only a small minority of people use their Windows PCs to access the kind of content that's relevant to DRM.
Last I checked this is just another way to lock users into windows. Microsoft is a content provider, the content they provide is software. Microsoft had NO connection to music or video distribution when they began the trusted computing initiative.
TCP and DRM are very different things.
If DRM was just upholding the copyright, I wouldn't mind it so much. However, it is used to extend copyright and deny users many rights that they should otherwise have.
As far as I know, in jurisdictions that have such a concept, "Fair Use" is a legal privilege (ie: dictated by legal precendents), not a "right" (ie: from something like a 'Bill of Rights').
I think cadeon means open standards.
I know what he means, but it's irrelevant.
The post I replied to was, sarcastically, saying that "less freedom = higher quality" - the implication clearly being that the highest quality [software] is reached in tandem with the highest level of freedom (by which I'd hazard a guess the poster is referring to the GPL, although he would be wrong in that assertion if he was).
My point is that by being constrained by "standards" - be they open or closed - developers clearly have less freedom. However, few on Slashdot would argue that conformance to [open] standards - ie: a loss in freedom - leads to lower quality. From the consumer perspective, few would argue that requiring, for example, hardware drivers to be tested before being "blessed" by a vendor would lead to lower quality, even thought it clearly results in "less freedom".
Let me get this straight: You think movie providers are in a position to "blacklist" a Microsoft operating system?
Pretty much. The vast majority of consumers do _not_ access most of their music/video/reading material via some device running Windows.
The movie industry could quite conceivably "blacklist" Windows such that full-quality content was never legally available on it. Most people would just cotninue to watch TV and movies via standalone devices.
No, the problem is the DMCA. DRM for these new formats has already been broken, and without that heinous law, It would be perfectly legal and possible for the computer to bypass it in order to allow the users to do things that are perfectly legal to do with a copyrighted work, regardless of whether or not you have the copyright holder's permission.
This is a dangerous line of reasoning to take, because it makes the assumption that DRM schemes will _always_ be "trivial" to circumvent.