- Feb 27, 2007
- 222
- 0
- 18,690
I have followed the issue of drm and this rabbit hole just gets deeper. For me, it not wether any body is for or against drm, but the implication in the manner in which microsoft is attempting to implement. For my first post on this subject, I post the following quote that I posted in a microsoft blog called vista content protection "20 questions and answers" (link provided below)
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage
The following is what I wrote:
Itspec,
one area of the document you posted talks about how dmca effects the rights of fairs use; and, thus, could be found unconstitutional.
The paper you posted also states "the potential for unforeseen applications and possible misapplications of the DMCA anti-circumvention regulations becomes obvious once one recognizes that copyright industries are not the only entities using technical measures to protect digital information". This area is curious as it does not address part of the "unforeseen applications and possible misapplications" of the dmca which has occurred in the case of vista.
For example, Virtualization offers a number of consumer benefits including but not limited to interoperability between systems, increased secruity through sandboxing, and decrease costs for developement of consumer software. However, Microsoft has implemented a policy whereby competing virtualization technologies such as vmware and parrells will be put out of business (see previous links and comments to gun vapor for more on vm issues). Microsoft is also imposing high cost and limitations for any use of vista in any vm (even a microsoft vm) which further reduces its potential usefulness and benefit to the consumer. In my opinion, this policy is in effect because of concern that virtualization has a potential to create a hole in the drm content protection of vista. The net effect of this policy is that microsoft further restricts consumers choice leaving microsoft with yet another monopoly --- this time in the virtualization market. The interesting point is that I don't think that microsoft is just trying to establish a monopoloy because it can --- but because it must so as to ensure that this technology no longer has a "potential" to create a hole in dmca scheme. There are many other technologies which pose such a potential to create a hole in dmca scheme --- some are obvious (ie:graphic cards) --- in this case microsoft has sought to control the market place by imposing limitations through licensing agreements on the hardware vendor so no new graphic cards can be produced that have a mere potential to create a hole in a dmca scheme --- this is quite significant as any type type of revolutionary break through in grapic card peformance must now deal with all of the complexity and restrictions posed by drm. This makes new innovation in technology much less likely and also means it will take much longer. Its also interesting to note that if a grahpic card manufacturer would decide to just foget about the all of the drm stuff and just focus on innovating new technology and making the product better -- it would be black balled from the pc industry through the licensing agreements by microsoft - once again microsoft is "limiting" the future of the entire pc market because of concerns of the "potential" of a technology to create a hole in a dmca scheme.
A big part of the problem is that drm is negatively impacting technologies that do not necessarily relate to drm; but only have the "mere potential to create a hole in a dmca scheme". How many other technologies will be eliminated or become increasingly laced with limitations so as to negate or hinder its userfulness just because the technology has the "mere potential to create a hole in a dmca scheme". Consider the case of virtualization technology --- Microsofts solution --- lets get rid of it from the market or let microsoft control it and limit its use. Consider the case with video card manufacturers ---- microsoft solution --- let us control what you can make through licensing agreement or you are black balled from the industry". Where does one draw the line??? How many other technologies represent a mere "potential" to make a hole in a dmca scheme and could be negatively effected by this policy ???
chlshrock --- its interesting that your link shows that the legislation is backed by the consumer electronics association, --- these are the hardware people who make the pc parts --- perhaps they are feeling really restricted with all of this drm stuff being dumped on them. Hope they win.
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage
The following is what I wrote:
Itspec,
one area of the document you posted talks about how dmca effects the rights of fairs use; and, thus, could be found unconstitutional.
The paper you posted also states "the potential for unforeseen applications and possible misapplications of the DMCA anti-circumvention regulations becomes obvious once one recognizes that copyright industries are not the only entities using technical measures to protect digital information". This area is curious as it does not address part of the "unforeseen applications and possible misapplications" of the dmca which has occurred in the case of vista.
For example, Virtualization offers a number of consumer benefits including but not limited to interoperability between systems, increased secruity through sandboxing, and decrease costs for developement of consumer software. However, Microsoft has implemented a policy whereby competing virtualization technologies such as vmware and parrells will be put out of business (see previous links and comments to gun vapor for more on vm issues). Microsoft is also imposing high cost and limitations for any use of vista in any vm (even a microsoft vm) which further reduces its potential usefulness and benefit to the consumer. In my opinion, this policy is in effect because of concern that virtualization has a potential to create a hole in the drm content protection of vista. The net effect of this policy is that microsoft further restricts consumers choice leaving microsoft with yet another monopoly --- this time in the virtualization market. The interesting point is that I don't think that microsoft is just trying to establish a monopoloy because it can --- but because it must so as to ensure that this technology no longer has a "potential" to create a hole in dmca scheme. There are many other technologies which pose such a potential to create a hole in dmca scheme --- some are obvious (ie:graphic cards) --- in this case microsoft has sought to control the market place by imposing limitations through licensing agreements on the hardware vendor so no new graphic cards can be produced that have a mere potential to create a hole in a dmca scheme --- this is quite significant as any type type of revolutionary break through in grapic card peformance must now deal with all of the complexity and restrictions posed by drm. This makes new innovation in technology much less likely and also means it will take much longer. Its also interesting to note that if a grahpic card manufacturer would decide to just foget about the all of the drm stuff and just focus on innovating new technology and making the product better -- it would be black balled from the pc industry through the licensing agreements by microsoft - once again microsoft is "limiting" the future of the entire pc market because of concerns of the "potential" of a technology to create a hole in a dmca scheme.
A big part of the problem is that drm is negatively impacting technologies that do not necessarily relate to drm; but only have the "mere potential to create a hole in a dmca scheme". How many other technologies will be eliminated or become increasingly laced with limitations so as to negate or hinder its userfulness just because the technology has the "mere potential to create a hole in a dmca scheme". Consider the case of virtualization technology --- Microsofts solution --- lets get rid of it from the market or let microsoft control it and limit its use. Consider the case with video card manufacturers ---- microsoft solution --- let us control what you can make through licensing agreement or you are black balled from the industry". Where does one draw the line??? How many other technologies represent a mere "potential" to make a hole in a dmca scheme and could be negatively effected by this policy ???
chlshrock --- its interesting that your link shows that the legislation is backed by the consumer electronics association, --- these are the hardware people who make the pc parts --- perhaps they are feeling really restricted with all of this drm stuff being dumped on them. Hope they win.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram