Slashdot Log In
Vista and the Music Industry
Journal written by BanjoBob (686644) and posted by
kdawson
on Mon Jan 01, 2007 01:54 AM
from the locked-down dept.
from the locked-down dept.
BanjoBob writes "Vista locks down all the DRM functionality and actually reduces the quality of playback of some media. This includes both audio and video content. As a company creating music and video products, how can we use Vista to create, distribute, and use legal media? I have read nothing to indicate that Vista has a model to allow 'authorized' use without causing problems. Currently we use Windows 2000 and Linux products. If what we understand is true, Vista and future Microsoft products won't be viable options for us since prior to publication, media must be copied multiple times, edited, moved around, re-edited and often modified into various forms (trailers, etc.) before, during, and after production. This naturally includes backups and recovery. If Vista is intent on prohibiting these uses, then Microsoft is intent on keeping their products out of the realm of content creation and editing. How do others deal with these issues?"
Related Stories
[+]
IT: Vista Security The 'Longest Suicide Note in History'? 467 comments
rar42 writes "The Inquirer is reporting on an analysis of Vista by Peter Gutmann — a medical imaging specialist. This isn't the usual anti-Microsoft story — just a professional looking at what is going to happen to his computer if it is upgraded to Microsoft Vista. From the article: 'Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to provide content protection for so-called "premium content", typically HD data from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources. Providing this protection incurs considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical support overhead, and hardware and software cost,' says Gutmann."
[+]
Microsoft Answers Vista DRM Critics' Claims 627 comments
skepsis writes "Recently there have been some stories on Slashdot claiming that Vista would downgrade the quality of audio and video for every application in a machine where protected content was running. One of the stories painted a scary scenario where a 'medical IT worker who's using a medical imaging PC while listening to audio/video played back by the computer' would have his medical images 'deliberately degraded.' A post has been put up on the Vista team blog explaining exactly how the content protection works, and it turns out the medical IT staff and audio pros can relax. From the post: 'It's important to emphasize that while Windows Vista has the necessary infrastructure to support commercial content scenarios, this infrastructure is designed to minimize impact on other types of content and other activities on the same PC. For example, if a user were viewing medical imagery concurrently with playback of video which required image constraint, only the commercial video would be constrained -- not the medical image or other things on the user's desktop.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I think you misunderstand (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I think you misunderstand (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it were that simple. There is no 'opt' in 'opt-in'. Content providers in many cases own the hardware companies manufacturing media players or work in concert with nominally unrelated industries such as Microsoft, Phoenix and Intel to create 'standards' which leave the consumer little option. Theses oligarchies are backed by now-federal, criminal law resulting from generations of lobby effort preventing work-arounds. Con
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I get so sick of reading this particular lie, time and time again. Consumers have plenty of choice when it comes to artistic works.
Not when it comes to fair use. Technology doesn't distinguish b/t someone who's trying to copy an entire work and someone who's trying to sample part of it for parody/commentary. I recently did the latter, and was a bit put off that the iTunes episode of BSG I had purchased didn't allow me to copy the frakin 30 second INTRO to make a smart-ass comment about it.
Fine. Whatev
That's true, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
...if people want to spread anti-DRM FUD, I say we let them! : )
But seriously, you're absolutely correct that Vista won't screw with non-DRM'd media. The flip side of that, though, is that Vista's DRM "support" won't do him any good either. Even though Microsoft has been claiming that the DRM will help producers of content like him, I think it's obvious that it'd be just too damn inconvenient.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But seriously, you're absolutely correct that Vista won't screw with non-DRM'd media.
That's what I used to think, before I began reading about "tilt bits" and the hardware gyrations needed to support that and the other "protected channel" features. Now it seems like
Re:I think you misunderstand (Score:5, Interesting)
Not just that. That is what Microsoft would like us to believe now as it is making all opponents of DRM square off with the recording industry while it is pushing for a completely different agenda.
Media playback is not going to be the primary use of Vista DRM in as little as 2 years from now. Vista + MS Office (post 2003) + active directory should provide businesses with a content control solution top to bottom. Data theft will become considerably more difficult, so will data leaks both internal and external. If implemented correctly any data the company values will be locked down using DRM to the company systems with a very strict and effective policy all the way to the desktop using TPM, per machine, per user keys, etc. Any mid-size and large business will jump at the opportunity. They will be idiots not to.
There are consequences of this:
And all this will happen quietly while we are paying attention only to the multimedia side of DRM (which I personally do not give a flying fuck about as dedicated players are way cheaper than a PC compliant to all HD requirements).
The only way to fight this off is to compete with it on merit - to have DRM top to bottom in the OS all the way to the word processor, mail client and the desktop. If OO wants to be relevant in 2 years it will have to have it in a year from now.
Parent
Re:I think you misunderstand (Score:4, Insightful)
You claim that businesses would be idiots not to jump at the opportunity. There must be a lot of idiots out there -- all the press I'm reading says that business isn't exactly jumping at the chance to move to Vista.
One of the great lessons of history is that companies fail when they focus on their own desires instead of those of their customers. MS has done this twice: (1) adding obscenely restrictive multimedia DRM when the very large majority of their customers do not want it; and (2) staying in bed with the hardware manufacturers by failing to control OS-bloat, which forces new computer purchases. It may be that Window's dominant market position is enough to drive this through, for now. Or, it may be that Vista starts a shift to Macintoshes. It's just a matter of time -- no company survives forever by not giving customers what they want.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I think you misunderstand (Score:5, Insightful)
Any mid-size and large business will jump at the opportunity. They will be idiots not to.
This needs to be thought through very carefully.
Most large and mid-size businesses know that a significant number of improvements in their data flows come from individuals developing new templates, spreadsheets, and other tools at home, on their own time. This is often done in the expectation of making their jobs easier (and the somewhat more distant hope of advancement or maybe a small bonus, or at least an honorable mention at the annual dinner furkryesache). These practices will be stopped by the kinds of controls parent post is talking about. The humming workerbees of 2005 will be reduced to the drones of 1985; the bottom-up flow of innovation that made the downsizings of the 1990s actually work, and that continue to have a positive impact on bottom lines, will be blocked.
Preventing employees from working with data on their own time will be like draining the swamp that sustains a big part of the company's ecosystem. Putting the DRM techniques into action the way parent talks about them would be like a bunch of fishermen ditching an upstream marsh to control mosquitos without bothering to think through where the fish are getting their sustenance.
As any corporate officer knows, it takes more than a well planned organizational chart to keep a business thriving. The important stuff always begins at an informal level, where undocumented meetings between people in different parts of the company thrash out ideas, separating the kernels from the chaff, and various brews are placed in the dark corners of the cubicles and hard drives to ferment. The good stuff isn't presented to the formal management structure until it has been taste-tested, placed in a sparkling clean mug, and offered up on a fancy coaster with a dainty cocktail napkin on the side. The stuff that doesn't work out is quietly poured down the drain without ever being documented.
Narrowly channelling data flows so that they cannot escape the corporate organizational chart is a sure way to prevent the cross-channel meanderings that bring forth the system wide improvements. There will be no new brews to delight the corporate palate. There will be no place for these to ferment in quiet, and very little grain to put into the informal thrashing parties.
Any business that jumps at the opportunity to channelize its data flows is not going to be able to respond as well as its competitors to changes in its environment and is not going to be able to grow. And in business it is either grow or die.
The DRM techniques parent talks about are an excellent improvement for the silo management structures used by big companies in the 1950s and 1960s. The kind of channelling they provide makes for much stronger silos. But today's business environment favors agility and athletic grace over brute strength, and that means opening up more informal communications networks, not shutting them down.
Yeah, there are new problems to face wrt securing company data, etc. But these are new problems and they are not going to be solved by improving on antiquated techniques. Businesses need to be looking for something better than the 3/4 horsepower rototiller they now have for plowing their acreage. With Vista, Microsoft appears to be offering to replace that fussy machine with the finest titanium digging stick money can buy.
Parent
Re:I think you misunderstand (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you didn't read Guttman's article.
Scenario: Medical imaging, displaying a scan on PC which uses a year-old DVI output (no HDCP). Operator fires up image, and opens a DRM'd ebook or other DRM-encumbered content to reference some information relevant to evaluating the scan. The DVI display is degraded by the PVP-OPM constrictor, because Vista sees DRM'd visual content going out over a non-DRM display (DVI w/o HDCP). Hopefully, the operator understands this and closes the ebook/whatever before reading the scan. Cost impact? Cost of prematurely-replacing hardware (video card and monitor -- possibly more -- so they're DVI+HDCP-compliant), cost of retraining operators to ensure they're aware of the issue, cost of management time spent planning for this, cost of technical support time spent diagnosing intermittent display problems until the issue is well-understood, etc., etc. Not to mention that the new hardware will be more expensive (see ATI's PowerPoint slides [microsoft.com] from WinHEC '05).
(Guttman's example was playing DRM'd audio to drown out background noise in the office environment, but I suspect Vista's smart enough not to downgrade the video because of DRM'd audio content.)
No, the sky's not falling. And yes, FUD doesn't only flow from Redmond. But Vista genuinely is set to cause quite a lot of additional costs and loss of productivity at several levels, because a small number of large influential content providers are successfully dictating it and Microsoft, Intel, and others are going along.
Guttman says that the specs on this constitute the "longest suicide note in history". We'll see.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me reiterate: PVP-OVM (video) does not "down-res" your entire display. PUMA (audio) does not "down-res" your display or downsample your audio.
Has anyone who is complaining about Vista's DRM features actually USED the product?
Re:Unprotected media (Score:3, Interesting)
Since Vista is locking down the secure media paths, and degrades paths or shuts them down at the kernel level, I don't think I would want to be in the middle of a Skype call and visit a website with a protected content video of the latest news broadcast that degrades or shuts off the analog hole.
Maybe it's FUD, Maybe the Fear is real. Can visiting a website degrade or disable your analog audio out, even if it is being used for something else? I'm going
Re:I think he doesn't misunderstand (Score:5, Informative)
Here's an idea. Why don't you do some actual research *before* you respond to the guy worried about Vista's DRM. That way you might actually have something constructive to add.
-matthew
Parent
Re:I think he doesn't misunderstand (Score:5, Interesting)
Vista does nothing at all to alter unprotected media, be it on standard hardware or stuff with TPM and HDCP up the wazoo. Nada, zip, zilch. It still runs at the expected quality with no signs of watermarking, bitrate reduction or other nasties. In fact, the file remains totally unchanged. This works even if I move the file between two machines.
The protected media doesn't like playing on a machine which isn't authorised to play it. On a machine authed to play it without HDCP and TPM, it is downsampled from HD to something godawful. On a machine with all the DRM support, it works fine.
Conclusion: Unless you're stupid enough to put DRM on your media, Vista won't tweak with the playback.
Parent
Don't listen to the FUD (Score:5, Informative)
So you can continue to use DRM free tools to your heart's content. The only time you need to start worrying about it is if you want to release content that's protected using the new DRM. Then you'll need to consider what tools you'll need to get for that, what restrictions it'll place on you, etc.
However you needn't worry about an evil gremlin applying DRM to your files while you sleep. Gutmann is just one of the many out there that dislike MS and are spreading FUD related to Vista. It may indeed be true that the DRM'd media files will suck and be low quality, however if you just don't use them then you'll never have to care.
Re: (Score:3)
If a product doesn't support DRM then Vista may not allow it as a valid application (and can in fact remove the ability of applications to run *after* the fact when they are identified as a problem.)
Vista can revoke the rights to your editing software when they find out it allows ripping and the authors don't immediately close the hole.
Re:Don't listen to the FUD (Score:4, Informative)
What the hell are you talking about? There is no such revocation system in Vista - the only thing close is the fact that drivers must be signed in the x64 version.
Microsoft could certainly push an upgrade that breaks applications explicitly, but this would be blatantly anticompetitive.
FairUse4WM works fine in Vista, as does nearly every DRM circumvention program that I've tried.
Parent
Re:Don't listen to the FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
Whew!! For a minute there I thought MS may actually do something like that!
Parent
Re:Don't listen to the FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, this is one of the tricky aspects of so-called 'Trusted Computing'. To elaborate: one possibility in 'Trusted Computing' is to disallow certain programs from being run. So, if you use editing software that, among other things, can use DRM-ed media, then if a 'DRM hole' (a security breach) is found in that software, it - the entire program - can be 'switched off' remotely. And this will affect you even if you don't use the DRM-related features, i.e. even if all the work you do with it is on DRM-free media of your own.
I don't believe that we have all the information about the technical details in this area yet. Let's assume for a moment, for simplicity's sake, that what I described above is how it can work. Now, if a DRM hole is found in a program, then Microsoft is in the position of being able to prevent mass copyright infringement by simply pushing a 'critical update' in Windows Update (what could be more critical than upholding the law?). The RIAA/MPAA will demand it, and I don't believe Microsoft will have much choice in the matter but to comply. And this is true even though it isn't in Microsoft's interest to comply - their interest is to keep their customers happy. But just like in P2P lawsuits, the issue will be 'contributory copyright infringement' (and if you think "Microsoft is too big to be sued" - well, the content industry is pretty big too, and anyhow the bigger they are, the more reason to sue them, isn't that how it works?).
The vendor distributing the program with the DRM hole might 'fix' things by closing the hole, of course, but that might take time. They might, in theory, offer a DRM-free version for people who don't need the DRM features, and that version would always work (probably overly optimistic, I know). But all of this is speculation: we simply have no experience with such circumstances. 'Trusted Computing' is bringing in a completely new set of rules, and anybody's guess as as good as another's.
Parent
Re:Don't listen to the FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
This problem will be especially pronounced for professional content creators because they're going to have a higher than normal probability of needing to (legitimately) work with protected content -- whether it's their own or somebody else's. Again, this is very unlikely to always happen, but it doesn't take that many 'unfortunate coincidences' to turn your average high-strung artist into a paranoid schizophrenic.
Parent
Re:Don't listen to the FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
You see, modern computers have this thing you may have heard of called multitasking. Inevitably, this will lead to non-DRM content being processed while DRMed content is also being processed. The problem with Microsoft's implementation is that, when this happens, Vista will apply the downgrading of quality to ALL of the output--not just the DRMed content. And don't think for a minute that this will be an unlikely scenario either. Once proprietary software starts putting DRM on icons or splash videos, this type of interaction will become all but inevitable.
Here's the relevant part of Dr. Gutman's [auckland.ac.nz] paper on this:
-Grym
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
With Flash becomming very common for us as we reach out to alternative devices (like phones and digital media players like iPod and the Archos), we'll be using PC based produ
Re: (Score:3)
And recently Apple has made large inroads in TV productions (an area they traditionally have not had a large following) with FinalCut Pro, especially where editors want to do their work in the field. The leader on this has bee
Re:Don't listen to the FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do people keep insisting that hardware-enforced DRM (like Vista's) is somehow optional, like Active Desktop or ClearType fonts? IT IS NOT.
Now, I don't expect the OP to read the technical documents behind Vista's "premium content protection" methods and I don't even expect him to read the expert analysis [auckland.ac.nz] he references on the subject, but for God's sakes, I can't believe he's acting as if he's somehow informed on the matter when he says things like:
This is a complete strawman argument. Nobody knowledgeable on the matter has ever claimed this. I specifically implore anyone to find me where Dr. Gutman ever claimed that DRM would be applied to non-DRM files. This mis-characterization of the opposition is academically dishonest in every sense of the phrase.
This is not true. Not even MICROSOFT is saying that. In fact, here's what they [microsoft.com] have to say about it: "We have made tremendous investments in Windows Vista to ensure backwards compatibility, but some of the system enhancements, such as User Access Control, changes to the networking stack, and the new graphics model, may require code changes on your part. You should work hard to run as standard user." (emphasis mine)
The fact that the vast majority of hardware you'll be able to buy (regardless of DRM or OS) will be more expensive, less reliable, slower, and fundamentally vulnerable to DDOS attacks is of no concern to you? Well I guess as long as it looks pretty, why should you care, right?
-Grym
Parent
Re:Don't listen to the FUD (Score:4, Informative)
You act as if software is going to advertise the fact that it has DRMed content in it AND that DRM will be limited to discrete media like movies and songs. What, in this world obsessed with "intellectual property", would ever make you think this?
Once the platform for content protection is established and accepted, there is EVERY reason to believe that DRM will be extended onto other copyrighted works--things like clipart, splash videos, GUI designs, fonts, PDF documents, and so on. And if ANY of this DRM-encumbered media is being (dis)played while non-DRM media is also being (dis)played, the quality of the non-DRMed content will be degraded as well.
Actually bothering to read the things you quote never hurts. All of those descriptors were in reference to the HARDWARE that will inevitably be designed around Microsoft's asinine specifications, regardless of whether you actually use/own DRMed content or Windows OS at all.
-Grym
Parent
Re:Don't listen to the FUD (Score:5, Informative)
The specs for DRM support in Vista specify that the OS has to encrypt any protected video data sent to the video card. "Ah HA," you say. "I'll just never use any protected video." Fair enough. But consider this: in the future, any new video card you buy will have to be capable of decrypting stuff even if you yourself never send it any encrypted content. That means that the company that makes the video card has to integrate cryptography capabilities into the video card. Which requires space on the video card's circuit board. That same circuit board space could have been, say, another pixel pipeline or two for faster video rendering - oh well. Congratulations, you're getting less bang for the same buck.
Except, of course, it's NOT the same buck; it's more buck. Integrating cryptography into a video card will require expertise (expensive), development (expensive), and testing (expensive). And naturally, some cryptography technologies are covered by patents, so the video card company will have to purchase more patent licenses (expensive). Guess who's going to wind up footing the bill for these new expenses? That's right: you, the end user.
Some of the patent expenses can probably be reduced. nVidia has patents of its own, as does ATI, and SGI for that matter. They can offer to swap patent permissions with companies who hold patents for cryptographic technology. (Assuming that the cryptography companies have any interest in graphics patents.) What's that you say? You're a small company? You don't have a massive portfolio of patents to bargain with? And your budget is limited? Sorry, friend, you're in the wrong line of work. Try McDonald's, I hear they need highly-skilled cash-register operators. (Not that there are very many small upstart video-card companies; breaking into that market is damn hard. Throwing in all this DRM stuff just makes the impossible a teensy bit harder.)
Slower development times, higher hardware costs, decreased competition
Parent
Old apps run fine (Score:3, Insightful)
Tomorrow you can expect that to stop, and only 'certified' individuals will get software that will work without DRMizing all the content first. This would be to prevent 'joe user' from doing 'unauthorized' things with his ( err, their ) content.
Sort of like how you cant buy freon unless you are government certifed.
Expect dev tools to fall under this same sort of control down the road someday. And before you say 'screw them, ill just use free xyz', when the compiler wont run on the board due to manda
Re:Don't listen to the FUD (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Don't listen to the FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
But she's going to keep on using Windows, right?
She's "devastated". Just not enough to actually do anything.
Parent
News Flash (Score:5, Informative)
If you want to spread FUD, at least don't make up EVERYTHING.
Re:News Flash (Score:4, Interesting)
1: You can't get music back off it.
- Well actually you can really easily, and organised by artist/album too if you use ipod-access or similer.
2: You can't use it to transfer files.
- Wrong again, iTunes lets you do it, but even without that option you can make a folder on the iPod and do that yourself with ease.
3: iTunes will nuke all your files instantly if you connect it to another computer.
- Nope, only if you choose to resynch it with a new machine, otherwise it'll leave it as is quite happily.
So, I win, and the iPod is rather nice with it. I rather suepected that their arguments were a load of dingoes kidneys, and I was right. FUD does serve one useful purpose though. It neatly reveals the easily fooled people.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It was horrible. The whole "check in/check out" system sucked. You couldn't move music files around on your computer, or back them up and restore them. The OpenMG software was just absolute crap, and you had no choice. You may not ha
Re:News Flash (Score:4, Interesting)
True, to the best of our knowledge, because it is only common sense isn't it?
Do you know about Microsoft's Zune?
It has wireless music sharing - you can send a song to another Zune player wirelessly. Sounds great, right?
Well, contrary to common sense - Zune infects ALL wirelessly transmitted music with DRM. It doesn't matter if the source was originally infected or totally clean - if you Zune it, it gets DRM.
And, that's not the only precedent - if you use XP's media-player to rip your CD's, you should check the configuration because it defaults to infecting your rips with DRM. At least it did for the original release and many service packs, I think they eventually did change the default to non-DRM, years later and all.
If Microsoft is willing to pull stunts like that, then obviously somewhere within MS, someone with a lot of clout believes in a 100% DRM world. How long until the next service pack for Vista tries to do something that actually makes the current FUD into truth?
Parent
DRM doing what it's supposed to do (Score:2)
Costing you an arm and a leg. (Score:3, Interesting)
It sounds like what might happen is the big players (huge music labels, etc.) will just pay MS to expedite their company's files and processes,
Because the "trusted path" contains everything from the monitor to the OS kernel, the only way to expedite the processes will be to replace everything. You will have to have special video drivers, a special version of Vista and perhaps special hardware. That's the kind of special that killed off non free Unix. The whole point of M$ was that you could use cheap,
I thought everything was Opt-in ... (Score:3)
Is this a new feature?
Vista can playback a music file with reduced quality if you don't have rights to it.
I can find no reference to such a feature on Microsoft site. Please post relevant links.
Previous operating systems completely denied music playback if you didn't have rights.
Its actually super cool if you now actually play non-authorized files, albeit with reduced quality.
well (Score:3, Interesting)
Selective degradation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hang on... (Score:4, Insightful)
Editors, please... edit?
how can media companies use Vista? (Score:5, Funny)
You could always buy the development version of Vista. I believe the working code-name was "OSX Tiger".
Don't Use Vista (Score:3, Insightful)
Er, duh. GET A MAC. (Score:3, Insightful)
They use a mac for their production work.
Duh.
p.s.: Dear lameness filter: I know it is like yelling, THAT'S WHY THAT WAS IN ALL CAPS.
DRM is a red herring, but don't use Vista (Score:4, Informative)
This is the fault of Microsoft somewhat - they completely changed the way their drivers work for sound and video, though I can't imagine that nVidia and Creative are blameless. Systems are going to start shipping with Vista in a few weeks and games do not run properly. I'd imagine that other video intensive things like rendering and editing will run into the same problems.
Uh, troll? (Score:5, Insightful)
- PVP-UAB (sends video encrypted across the PCIe bus)
- PVP-OPM (HDCP / ICT support)
That's it. Protected User Mode Audio is just an update to the Secure Audio Path that's already in Windows XP. Windows Media DRM isn't new, either - every copy of Windows XP already has it.
I am running Windows Vista right now. The quality of non-DRM content is not "reduced" by Vista. 1080p H.264 videos still play in 1080p. MP3s sound just like they did under XP. I can still record from line in. WMP11 still rips to unprotected MP3s or WMAs. I can still rip DVDs. My XVID/AC3 videos still play. My no-CD patched games still work. FairUse4WM still runs and can still crack WM-DRM.
Vista has meant absolutely NOTHING for me regarding DRM. DRM-encumbered content is still as easy to break as ever under Vista. You can still write, distribute, and use DRM circumvention programs using Vista.
There is very little new as far as DRM goes in Vista. This isn't an XBOX 360.
Amazing (Score:4, Interesting)
Either someone is having a bit of a joke, or, just possibly, Microsoft has truly lost the plot.
Ok, this is Slashdot. Let's assume MS has lost the plot.
What have they done - and why have they done it?
Well, it would appear they have entirely sold their souls to the content owners (not producers). [Note, this assumes they had souls
They have created a computer system so perverted to the content owners' cause it will spend half the power of the hosting computer in checking to make sure no content is inadvertently revealed in some copiable way.
To this end, they have an extraordinary scheme of in-computer and on-line checking. They will even disable computers if they believe them to be misbehaving. The merest hint of a possibility will cause quality downgrading
Not, personally, a direction I wanted to go in. Or Microsoft to go in, actually (like most people, I actually try to use their systems
But the questions is - why?
It's possible that someone else sold *their* soul, someone who could put in place laws to force all this to happen.
Or it's possible that some sort of deal/deals was/were done so MS would get better content. (Before Apple, maybe? Are they really such a threat?)
It's got to be one or the other, surely.
Either way, I don't like the sound of it.
Re:Don't musicians use macs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It doesnt work that way (Score:4, Interesting)
Since Vista's desktop sound effects are all supposed to be copy-protected (read: defective), doesn't that mean that Vista is always running in degraded mode?
Schwab
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You haven't been paying attention.
When you "squirt" a song from a Zune, the recipient is only allowed to play it three times, whether the song is Defective Recorded Media (DRM) or a plain, unencumbered MP3.
Prove that this defect in the Zune will not be "back-ported" to Vista. (Answer: You can't.)
Vista is untrustworthy. Install and use at your own risk.
Schwab
Re:Switch to a Mac (Score:4, Insightful)
Macs don't prohibit a general creation of an audio/video file and degrades the content as part of a file I/O process.
According to the article, Vista does.
iTunes and iPod have nothing to do with file degradation within the OS. Those are just programs/devices.
Parent