Can anyone explain, how being HDCP complaint is beneficial to MS other than protecting them self from possible suits?
Another thing, would it be better if we had a SINGLE copyright protection technology as oppose to multiple different ones.
The content owners will want to sell their content with some kind of DRM anyway. But look what happens when there is no unified DRM.
I have iTunes, but the songs that I buy through iTunes Store can be played only either by apple software or by iPod. This is such significant limitation for me, that I am trying NOT to buy songs from iTunes Store.
I just want to have different situation with HD movies. If I buy from one online store, I should be able to play it on ANY player device! So having single standard is very beneficial for me.
That's what Apple wants. You want to play their songs, you buy their player.
May be Apple does want that, but right now there is simply no way for a company to sell online music which has secure DMR and be compatible with all sorts of hardware and software players. Because there is no standard!
With CD music there is standard - you buy any CD and it plays anywhere. Same with DVD. But not with online downloads, because this standard is currently missing.
I'm not up on the whole HDCP specifics but, I think HD-DVD and BluRay each have their own DRM scheme.
If it is true, that's unfortunate, and I hope only single format remains.
However, I do not care much about HD-DVD vs BluRay staff. I think it is too late for them to be major distributors of the content. I am not planning to buy any of them (well only may be as recorder for my computer, but only as digital recording device, not a media recording device)
The next mass distribution of media is internet, and that's where it is important to have single format. Important for us, users!
The benefits to M$ are detailed in the article and the audio interview. It allows M$ to lock down the computer and gain greater control over hardware and drivers.
And how does this translate to $$? All I see is extra work for MS, they have to "control" it, i.e. test it, etc. Though it will be directly or indirectly payed by us, consumer, but I do not see the reason for MS to do DRM for this in mind. I do not see big revenue stream here!
Also to make it harder for the Graphics card manufacturers to support open operating systems e.g., Linux and it's spin-offs.
Do you really think this is why MS is putting all that DRM staff into Vista? Somehow I doubt it.
I know that you think it is all BS because it contradicts the two paragraphs in the M$ EULA.
What you have listed does not contradict EULA, but it can not be the reason of why MS is doing it. So may I ask again WHY does MS put DRM into Vista? Where is the money?
This quote is taken from the final thoughts of the article. I didn't want to post parts of the article but I guess it's the only way to answer your question.
Link to source:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
[Begin Excerpt]
At the end of all this, the question remains: Why is Microsoft going to this much trouble? Ask most people what they picture when you use the term “premium-content media player” and they'll respond with “A PVR” or “A DVD player” and not “A Windows PC”. So why go to this much effort to try and turn the PC into something that it's not?
In July 2006, Cory Doctorow published an analysis of the anti-competitive nature of Apple's iTunes copy-restriction system which looked at the benefits of restrictive DRM for the company that controls the DRM. The only reason I can imagine why Microsoft would put its programmers, device vendors, third-party developers, and ultimately its customers, through this much pain is because once this copy protection is entrenched, Microsoft will completely own the distribution channel. In the same way that Apple has managed to acquire a monopolistic lock-in on their music distribution channel (an example being the Motorola ROKR fiasco, which was so crippled by restrictions that a Fortune magazine senior editor reviewed it as the STNKER), so Microsoft will totally control the premium-content distribution channel. In fact examples of this Windows content lock-in are already becoming apparent as people move to Vista and find that their legally-purchased content won't play any more under Vista (the example given in the link is particularly scary because the content actually includes a self-destruct after which it won't play any more, so not only do you need to re-purchase your content when you switch from XP to Vista, but you also need to re-purchase it periodically when it expires. In addition and since the media rights can't be backed up, if you experience a disk crash you get another opportunity to re- purchase the content then). It's obvious why this type of business model makes the pain of pushing content protection onto consumers so worthwhile for Microsoft since it practically constitutes a license to print money.
So not only will Microsoft be able to lock out any competitors, but because they will then represent the only available distribution channel they'll be able to dictate terms back to the content providers whose needs they are nominally serving in the same way that Apple has already dictated terms back to the music industry: Play by Apple's rules, or we won't carry your content. And as the example above shows, they'll also be able to dictate terms to consumers in order to ensure a continual revenue flow. The result will be a technologically enforced monopoly that makes their current de-facto Windows monopoly seem like a velvet glove in comparison [Note K]. [End Excerpt]
This is how they will make their money, and why they are "helping Hollywood".
Sad isn't.
I know this isn't the stock market, but in the stock market pigs get slaughtered, I see M$ greed as the beginning of their end. M$ could of choose a different avenue IMO.
I have already moved on to two of M$'s competitors, others will do the same.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram