Vista - this review, its promise and DRM

[MxM]

MxM,
Did you get a chance to listen to the audio clip? What did you think?

http://www.grc.com/sn/SN-074.htm

I have stop listening after the statement:
"The hardware that the consumer purchased could be shut down." Which simply contradicts the official document issued by Microsoft called "MICROSOFT SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS" freely available on internet. And if I can not trust one of the very first statements in the beginning of the program, I do not see the reason to trust the rest...

What I think has happened here (just a hypothesis, do not quote me in that) is that initially MS did indeed have horrible license terms, but after seeing outcry in the community about it, it has changed the terms of license.

So I thank the guys like Peter Gutmann who wrote that article, and forced MS to change the policies, but now it lost it actuality, yet some people continue to go into the same direction just by inertia...

(I admit though that I know only about re-instalation policy change for sure, so I do not know if DRM policies were indeed adjusted as well)

Also, Peter admits himself (in the original article) that he looks at it as a security specialist, i.e. what in principle MS can do. He does not analyze for example what will happen if MS will actually try to do the thing, like completely shutting down purchased hardware, which contradicts its own license terms. That was not even his goal, as he admits himself.

I do agree though that there is extra cost associated with development of regulation complaint software, but blame the regulator (government, which was influenced through K street by media giants like Sony), not MS who has to comply to it.

 

[MxM]

I would like to read the laws and regulation that was posted in this forum about M$ had to follow; don't you?

I do, and unfortunately those are not very easy to find and understand. But do you blame that on MS as well?

Vista may have a huge negative impact on the PC community, please take the time to find out. This is not the every day argument to take lightly. Research and find out what really is going on.

Or I did, and my conclusion is that there is no data provided, say, by economist or accountants that shows "huge negative impact on PC community". And I am sorry, but I can't take the word of "security specialist" who treats the problem, as he admits himself, not as economist, not as lawyer, but as security specialist, I can not take his word as truth in the matter of "huge negative impact".

Plus, as I mentioned before, he often consider examples that simply contradicts MS license. I understand, that as sequrity specialist, he needs to do it, but the rest are just taking his words out of context, and do not even try to see the problem as a whole, not only from security specialist point of view.

Did I mention that he is a security specialist? :roll:

 

[Zorg]

MxM,
Did you get a chance to listen to the audio clip? What did you think?

http://www.grc.com/sn/SN-074.htm

I have stop listening after the statement:
"The hardware that the consumer purchased could be shut down." Which simply contradicts the official document issued by Microsoft called "MICROSOFT SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS" freely available on internet. And if I can not trust one of the very first statements in the beginning of the program, I do not see the reason to trust the rest...

What I think has happened here (just a hypothesis, do not quote me in that) is that initially MS did indeed have horrible license terms, but after seeing outcry in the community about it, it has changed the terms of license.

So I thank the guys like Peter Gutmann who wrote that article, and forced MS to change the policies, but now it lost it actuality, yet some people continue to go into the same direction just by inertia...

(I admit though that I know only about re-instalation policy change for sure, so I do not know if DRM policies were indeed adjusted as well)

Also, Peter admits himself (in the original article) that he looks at it as a security specialist, i.e. what in principle MS can do. He does not analyze for example what will happen if MS will actually try to do the thing, like completely shutting down purchased hardware, which contradicts its own license terms. That was not even his goal, as he admits himself.

I do agree though that there is extra cost associated with development of regulation complaint software, but blame the regulator (government, which was influenced through K street by media giants like Sony), not MS who has to comply to it.

It is good that you took the first opportunity to not listen to the interview. Your mind is closed, which is your prerogative. I believe that any further discussion with you on this subject is fruitless. I guess we should wait and see what transpires.

 

[MxM]

It is good that you took the first opportunity to not listen to the interview. Your mind is closed, which is your prerogative. I believe that any further discussion with you on this subject is fruitless. I guess we should wait and see what transpires.

It is not that. This interview is like one hour, and I do value my time so that I do not listen to the source that I mistrust for the whole hour. There is too much disinformation on internet, so I have to be sure that the source is not just bullshitting before I even bother to continue.

 

[Ghost9]

It is good that you took the first opportunity to not listen to the interview. Your mind is closed, which is your prerogative. I believe that any further discussion with you on this subject is fruitless. I guess we should wait and see what transpires.

It is not that. This interview is like one hour, and I do value my time so that I do not listen to the source that I mistrust for the whole hour. There is too much disinformation on internet, so I have to be sure that the source is not just bullshitting before I even bother to continue.

funny you should mention disinformation.....

What interests me if you had listened to the interview, aside from the shutting down of hardware, since every vista system now has all of the copyright protection crap built into it, every single system is weighed down by the extra processes. Vista checks your hardware 30 times a second to make sure it's "valid". This may seem like a good idea in a copyright protection sense, but what about the people who don't use their pc as a tv? All of these people now have a system that wastes time and resources checking on things they don't "need" to be checked.

Whether you trust the information or not, if you refuse to listen to it you are just exorcising ignorance. How can you judge if the information is correct if you don't even read or listen to it? And why do you put so much faith in their licensing agreement? Just because there would be repercussions for the actions does not mean that they won't do it.

If your time is so important, why are you spending so much in these forums replying to a topic that you think is all propagandist bullshit?

 

[Zorg]

well said

 

[Ghost9]

btw, I've heard that there's a guy in Europe who's already cracked Blue-Ray and HD-DVD. He managed to find the encryption key stored in his RAM memory when it plays.

I have no idea if this is true or not, but if it is hasn't there been a whole lot of time and resources wasted on this vista protection?

 

[MxM]

funny you should mention disinformation.....

Why is it funny? Do you imply that I misinform people? Which part?

What interests me if you had listened to the interview, aside from the shutting down of hardware, since every vista system now has all of the copyright protection crap built into it, every single system is weighed down by the extra processes. Vista checks your hardware 30 times a second to make sure it's "valid". This may seem like a good idea in a copyright protection sense, but what about the people who don't use their pc as a tv? All of these people now have a system that wastes time and resources checking on things they don't "need" to be checked

Oh! Come on! There are TONS of staff in any significant software like OS, office software, or even image editors that you never use. Do you think each peace of software should be individually tailored to the user. That would be so expansive! It is much cheaper to give the same software to everyone, and everyone would use only the part that they need.
If you are using more than 10% of MS office capabilities , I will be greatly impressed. Hell, even if you know how to use 50% capability of MS word along, I will be impressed.

So what if they never use computer as TV? Do they ever play protected material (Video or Audio)? Even if they do not, the situation is not very different than if they are not using DXDiag function of windows.
And according to the MS license, they should never experience anything bad from DRM, like shutting down the hardware, when they do not play DRM protected material.

Oh! You argue that hardware cost will be increased for them? But it was always so. Say, they do not play 3D games, but the chances are that their graphic card do support that, and the drivers installed on their computer, also support that. And there are many examples like that! (say, I never use SLI, but my card and the drivers support that, I do not use more than 1.3GB of memory, but my motherboard and windows supports that. I never use more than 2 hard-drives... you get the idea)

Whether you trust the information or not, if you refuse to listen to it you are just exorcising ignorance. How can you judge if the information is correct if you don't even read or listen to it?

A) I read the original article.
B) I do judge information only after I listen. It is just you do not have listen the whole part to make you mind. If I find inconsistencies in the first part that I had listen, then I do not need to listen the second part to make conclusion that I can not trust this source (note I do not say that the second part is incorrect, I just say that I can not trust it, i.e. make conclusions based on it)

Consider the following example. You open a book about physics and on the first page you see the statement like "actually, the speed of sound in the air is faster than speed of light in the air". Would you care to read the rest of the book? Do you need to read the rest of the book to make conclusion that this source of information is not reliable?

So, no, it is not ignorance, it is quite the opposite. It is careful estimation of the information validity, and avoidance of unreliable sources.

And why do you put so much faith in their licensing agreement? Just because there would be repercussions for the actions does not mean that they won't do it.

Because license is a legal document. I am not saying that they absolutely never do actions inconsistent to their license. But if they do, then they will be sued. So, most probably they will not do those actions, because it is not profitable for them. And yes, M$ is all about profits (and so are the most other companies).

If your time is so important, why are you spending so much in these forums replying to a topic that you think is all propagandist bullshit?

A) I do not think that it is a propagandist bullshit, I think it is your honest opinion. You may mistaken, but I may be mistaken as well.
B) Believe it or not, I do enjoy conversation with you, guys, even if you do not agree with me and I do not agree with you. And I can't have conversation with the recorded interview, so I do not see any reason to listen to it, because it has neither reliable information, nor something for me to enjoy.

 

[ScottyDog]

This is a direct quote from David Marsh:
" In the case of HD optical media formats such as HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, the constraint requirement is 520K pixels per frame (i.e., roughly 960x540), which is still higher than the native resolution of content distributed in the DVD-Video format."

The design specifications for HD is that it will output at 1080. So MS has decided along with Hollywood that your hardware will not output the proper resolution even if you have a certified HDCP monitor that you paid big bucks for the ability to view HD on your personnel Computer.

I think you are taking the quote out of content. The question was "Will the playback quality be reduced on some video output types?" Notice the word "some"? So if you have a certified HDCP monitor and complaint drivers for you hardware, you should be able to see 1080 in full glory.

Also you omitted the first part of the quote "Image quality constraints are only active when required by the policy associated with the content being played". Meaning, again, that if your monitor and drivers are withing compliance of the protected media, then there will be no image quality constraints.

NO I did not take the quote out of context. I actually have done the research and read Peter Gutman's article and have not dismissed it out of hand.In addition, I have relied on experts like Leo LaPorte and Steve Gibson that interviewed Peter about the new DRM and many other experts that quite frankly are geniuses.

I upgraded my Computer to become Vista Compliant and cannot play protected Content with PowerDVD or WinDVD. I also tried several other software players that play HD content.

According to NVIDIA and PowerDVD my system is HD compliant and ready.

A friend of mine purchased an Xbox and brought it over to my house to see if I could play HD-DVD's. I can view all of the bonus content on the HD movie Serenity but I cannot play the movie as it blacks out the screen as soon as it starts to play.

I also downloaded some HD demo movies to my computer and they will not play at 1080p. They are reduced to a lower resolution but PowerDVD does not display the actual resolution that is displayed.

The movies plays just fine in WinXP thank you very much.

Now on to the issue that DRM only kicks in when premium content is present and will not effect non premium Content.

Here is a screen shot of one of the new programs that monitors content in the background called Media Foundation Protected Pipeline
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/3056/mfpmpam5.jpg

Since there is no documentation on this program and or its function, as of this time, it is a secret, we users have no idea what this program does or why it consumes valuable CPU cycles from the system.

We will have to wait for Peter to get some time to analyze just exactly what it is doing.

I urge you to actually read what Peter is saying about the DRM in Vista especially his latest update where he demonstrates that David Marsh lied with his answers in the 20 questions blog with his own written words in MS published DRM documentation.

I think it is demonstrative that a high level MS executive publically makes false statements about Vista DRM.

What does that say about MS and its true intentions with the DRM schemes being implemented.

None of this will prevent the commercial pirates from duplicating and selling illegal copies of "Premium Content". They have already cracked the protection and bypassed MS Content Protection.

 

[MxM]

According to NVIDIA and PowerDVD my system is HD compliant and ready.

That's not the issue. The issue is if they are DRM complaint. If the movie does not play that could mean one of two things
1) You still have some driver/hardware/software which is not DRM complaint.
2) MS does not follow it's license agreement.

In first case you have to upgrade that driver/hardware/software to DRM complaint variant. In second case you can sue MS (I am serious). But I suspect it is the first case.

I urge you to actually read what Peter is saying about the DRM in Vista especially his latest update where he demonstrates that David Marsh lied with his answers in the 20 questions blog with his own written words in MS published DRM documentation.

I have read that article fully. But I also understand that it is very tilted view from the point of view of security specialist. He did not consider the problem fully, e.g. he did not consider what happens if Microsoft violates its own license. He says only what MS can do.

I think it is demonstrative that a high level MS executive publically makes false statements about Vista DRM.

I have never like MS business practices. I am not MS funboy.

None of this will prevent the commercial pirates from duplicating and selling illegal copies of "Premium Content". They have already cracked the protection and bypassed MS Content Protection.

First of all, just a note, this is beyond the scope of this discussion. Whether there is any sense to make regulation about content protection or not is not exactly topic of this discussion. MS did not invent the regulations, it follows them.

But I can express my own opinion about this topic as well.

I think that there will be illegal copies anyway. I do not think that anyone at MS or any other company really think that it will stop hard core pirates. But there is a saying that "locks are for honest people only" or something like that. There is no problem for a criminal to open locked door, but yet you still lock your door in the house or in you car...

Same is here. Sure there will be pirated content, but right now it is just too easy to insert CD into computer and put all songs to internet for sharing. Thus you literally can find anything on internet.

I do expect that while the piracy will continue with DRM in place, it will not be as spread as without it.

Also, look at the bright side. It looks like it is "kind of OK" for people to share down-converted movies. I am really glad that industry goes in that direction. Premium content should be paid for. Non-premium, downgraded content, should be free some time after its production (and I am not talking years here)

 

[Zorg]

Are you sure that you don't work for M$? By the way the word is stuff not staff. and I think you meant expensive not expansive.

 

[MxM]

By the way the word is stuff not staff. and I think you meant expensive not expansive.

You are right. English is my second language (it is quite obvious I think) and I do make those mistakes. I appreciate when somebody takes time and notify me about those mistakes. Thanks.

Are you sure that you don't work for M$?

Yeah, re-reading my posts I think MS should pay me some money, or at least give Vista Ultimate for free . Ah! I can at least dream about it.

But as I mentioned before, I am not in any way associated with MS or get paid by it. I also do not like MS practices. However, I think it is pointless to attack MS when you do not have sound case, and right now with DRM I think we do not. You actually making MS a favor when you do it, because when they prove you wrong, it will be easier for them to ignore actual issues, like monopoly power that they exhibit from time to time in crushing their competitors. Here, however, they only helping other OS, if the do something wrong with DRM.

 

[ScottyDog]

MXM

Peter Gutman did consider the legal implications spelled out in the EULA but you would have to listen to the pod cast by Leo LaPorte that you find is not credible even though you did not listen to it.

There are lawsuits filed against MS for violations of their EULA by the EFF. I personally am very interested in the outcome because I think they have crossed the line with the DRM embedded into Vista.

How can I upgrade to a DRM compliant variant when I have the latest "variant" software and hardware that is supposed to work. I am not the only one that has discovered they wasted their money from a HD standpoint. Read some of the posts in the slashdot or digg forums by people that are in the same boat.

Also, look at the bright side. It looks like it is "kind of OK" for people to share down-converted movies.

Are you saying the movie I tried to play was pirated, it was a legally purchased HD DVD and it did not play period on Vista.

As far as suing MS, are you seriously proposing that I sue MS that has 45 billion of cash in the bank because if you are you are naive.

MXM you and I will never agree on this issue because on one hand you say you do not like MS and its business tactics and practices yet on the other hand you rationalize what they are doing as a good way to stop piracy.

You cannot have it both ways especially when the DRM they are shoving down our throats is not about piracy despite your claims that it is preventing people from downloading and sharing premium content.

The DRM in Vista is a virus on technological innovation and is there for one reason, to enforce a business model for distribution of movies and music and to expand its monopoly over the personal computer.It will increase the costs of computers and hardware just like Peter Gutman said it would in his article originally published back in December.

 

[Zorg]

I agree

 

[MxM]

MXM
Peter Gutman did consider the legal implications spelled out in the EULA but you would have to listen to the pod cast by Leo LaPorte that you find is not credible even though you did not listen to it.

OK, guys I will listen (or read transcript, it is faster).

There are lawsuits filed against MS for violations of their EULA by the EFF. I personally am very interested in the outcome because I think they have crossed the line with the DRM embedded into Vista.

That's what I am talking about. If MS does not follow EULA, then you sue them. But I think the license it self is fine.

How can I upgrade to a DRM compliant variant when I have the latest "variant" software and hardware that is supposed to work.

This is a question to the hardware manufacturers. I would only blame MS if it did not give enough time in advance to make those complaint drivers.
However, you are an early technology adapter . It is expected there will be bugs and glitches. If however, 1 year after release, we still have the same problem, then we have a big issue. But not today, because according to the MS license you should not experience any problems if all drivers are DRM complaint. Just give some time for hardware manufacturers to write those drivers.

I am not the only one that has discovered they wasted their money from a HD standpoint. Read some of the posts in the slashdot or digg forums by people that are in the same boat.

At least you knew (or you should new) what you are buying. And you have some legal protection that if this is not fixed you can claim that MS violated its own license.

I was screwed by $2.5K by buying 4 years ago HDTV without HDCP, and only DVI and component inputs. And then or govement makes this regulations according to which I can't us my HDTV to watch HD-DVD or Blu-Ray!

I think your anger is misdirected on MS, meanwhile the actual "root of evil" is the government which accepted those regulations after heavy lobbying by some big content producers. The government should represent the people, not the content producers! Am I too naive here?

As far as suing MS, are you seriously proposing that I sue MS that has 45 billion of cash in the bank because if you are you are naive.

Don't you contradict yourself? You already mentioned that MS is already in litigations.

Plus remember what happened with tobacco industry? Class action suit can win... This is US after all, the motherland of the lawyers

MXM you and I will never agree on this issue because on one hand you say you do not like MS and its business tactics and practices yet on the other hand you rationalize what they are doing as a good way to stop piracy.

First, I do not say that it is good way to stop piracy. It is a way (not the best way) to reduce piracy. And again, I do not think that MS to blame here, but those regulations.

The DRM in Vista is a virus on technological innovation and is there for one reason, to enforce a business model for distribution of movies and music and to expand its monopoly over the personal computer.It will increase the costs of computers and hardware just like Peter Gutman said it would in his article originally published back in December.

The funny thing is that I agree with all what you say, with too important points. A) I do not blame (at least for now) MS for that, and B) I did not see the actual numbers for cost increase (but neither did Peter) and I suspect that it may be quite small in dollar amount, at list I do not see any indications that my video card will cost twice more for me because of DRM.

 

[MxM]

MXM
Peter Gutman did consider the legal implications spelled out in the EULA but you would have to listen to the pod cast by Leo LaPorte that you find is not credible even though you did not listen to it.

OK, guys I will listen (or read transcript, it is faster).

All right, I have read the transcript, and one thing I can say, there is very little new information compared to the article. Also there are several statements that contradict MS license and what's more funny they contradict other statements in the same paper. Like statement that Vista is going to do encrypt system bus. Then he says that there is no power in modern processors to do it. So which way is that?

Though, one interesting thing I realized reading the article, is that XBox 360 can, indeed, produce analog signal (component 1080i) for premium content. Thus it must be legal to do it (is it?) Or is the old or exiting hardware exception from the HDMI rule? Because I am quite sure that it it is illegal to have HDMI to component converters with removal of HDCP. (Try to find them on sale from american websites...)

One thing that this article have convinced that if I want to ever use my soon-to-be-bought/build-PC to play protected content, I have to wait until there are MS certified drivers for all pieces of hardware that I choose for my PC, and that it CAN play the protected content. Otherwise I will end up in situation like with my 4 years old HDTV which does not have HDMI 🙁

However, according to that transcript Vista will never be able to play protected content:

It's hard to tell what goes on inside Microsoft. But if you read the technical specs, I think any technical person that reads those specs would say this is never going to work, and half of the stuff is nuts.

Well, I do not think that MS is enemy to itself. I can bet that at least in SP1 either specs will be rewritten (and thus half of the scare scenarios will not be true) or they are not "nuts and impossible". Otherwise MS will end up with system with no complaint drivers and unable to play any protected material. This just can't happen.

 

[Zoron]

All I can say is where were you guys about 9 years ago when a little something called The Digital Millenium Copyright Act was signed into law? Were you asleep at the wheel? Did you not know the future ramifications of such legislation?

Now, you want to stomp MS for complying with the Act instead of the Act itself. Nice. What you all seem to fail to realize is that EVERYONE will have to comply with this legislation; not just Microsoft. As usual though, MS is the scapegoat when the real culprit is the people that devised the Act and signed it into law. If you're going to fight, at least put your energy into fighting to change the right thing; versus what you perceive to be the "devil" (Microsoft).

You want to bitch about their implementation, go right ahead... but DRM is here to stay and it is NOT going away because you get all pissy at Microsoft. As long as the DMCA stands as law the way it is... that's the way things will be. Feel free to lobby to get the law changed if you are that pissed off about it instead of fighting against a company trying to comply with said law.

 

[MxM]

Finally! Somebody else understands the problem! Thanks, Zoron, for putting it so well, may be some other people will finally get it!

 

[lcandy]

Oh, I understand the problem as well. Somehow, the North American Government, which I could not vote for, has caused there to be rammifications in my own Country. Great! I was really interested to see that someone mentioned about China, ignoring this and removing DRM. I don't know how, but it sounds good all the same.

I wasn't going to be an early adaptor of Vista anyway. Yes my PC is quite capable of running it but there are so many reasons not to make the switch. For example, prohibitive cost that is larger in my country than in the US, incompatability issues, bugs, security holes, much lower performance, MS having too much control and yes DRM.

I will just wait it out, possibly for a long time. What happens when SP1 comes around? Will the price drop? Will M$ realise they have made a mistake and change these problems or keep going ahead regardless? Will a competitor step up to the plate? Will people hack the new OS to pieces, taking away MS's control over my computer?

As a consumer I say no. MS will have to convince me these issues are dealt with. If not I just tell all my friends not to make the switch, which I have already started doing effectively. It won't make a big difference in the grand scheme of things, but what it does is give me and my friends more time without dealing directly with these issues.

 

[sluzbenik]

I think in the final analysis we will see that DRM has totally backfired. We will see a very, very large explosion of piracy and video file sharing on the Internet.

By hamstringing the consumer, forcing upgrades of monitors and video cards to be HDCP compliant, you will drive people to piracy. Soon it won't be just IT-aware folks who know how to install a codec pack, when people realize they can't watch the HD content they want legally on Vista, they will download a pirated version that will display it in full resolution.

If you want to watch HD content on your computer, it is essentially the only solution right now for most people. I will keep a copy of XP around to make back-up copies of HD-DVDs, if I ever buy any (which I probably won't) for viewing on Vista.

The only thing that will slow down piracy of HD content is broadband speeds. Right now downloading HD-DVDs even at 6 mb/s is not really very palatable for most people.

 

[Zorg]

All I can say is where were you guys about 9 years ago when a little something called The Digital Millenium Copyright Act was signed into law? Were you asleep at the wheel? Did you not know the future ramifications of such legislation?

Now, you want to stomp MS for complying with the Act instead of the Act itself. Nice. What you all seem to fail to realize is that EVERYONE will have to comply with this legislation; not just Microsoft. As usual though, MS is the scapegoat when the real culprit is the people that devised the Act and signed it into law. If you're going to fight, at least put your energy into fighting to change the right thing; versus what you perceive to be the "devil" (Microsoft).

You want to bitch about their implementation, go right ahead... but DRM is here to stay and it is NOT going away because you get all pissy at Microsoft. As long as the DMCA stands as law the way it is... that's the way things will be. Feel free to lobby to get the law changed if you are that pissed off about it instead of fighting against a company trying to comply with said law.

I am against the DMCA, however, your argument is fallacious. Please cite quotes from the DMCA document that force M$ to install DRM/HDCP into Vista. Sure Vista wouldn't be able to play HDCP without third party software, but they were in no way obligated by the DMCA to put such protection in Vista, and screw up the entire industry.

 

[Zorg]

Zoron,
No quotes?

 

[MartinTibbitts]

I have to say that the DRM aspects of Vista make me wary. Once upon a time I switched from a Mac to Windows. Hell it was 10 years ago. Would this be enough to make people want to switch back?

Martin Tibbitts

 

[Zoron]

Read the act yourself... I'm not going to quote it for you if you're too lazy to read it.

 

[Zorg]

Read the act yourself... I'm not going to quote it for you if you're too lazy to read it.

Yo Zoron,
I read the act. I refute your claim that there is anything in it that specifically states that M$ was required to put DRM/HDCP into Vista. I wasn't asking for you to cite quotes from the DMCA because I was too lazy to read it. I was asking you to cite quotes to substantiate your claims. The comment was actually rhetorical, because I already Know that those quotes do not exist. The fact that you could not produce them and had to call me lazy confirms this. So, I will ask you again, produce quotes to the MDCA, that you so eagerly linked to, to confirm your earlier tirade, or retract it. I don't care which.