Microsoft Answers Vista DRM Critics' Claims 627
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.'"
Security and Quality (Score:4, Insightful)
Less freedom = better quality?
Might as well say it.
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.....
And we are to believe the VISTA developers? (Score:1, Insightful)
The company that abandons the users on older machines, to help their customers sell new machines.
Of course they do not have any errors in the DRM or other processes that the error will not happen.
So why again I do not own the hardware in my equipment to be used HOW I WANT TO USE IT?
Re:Knaves and Crackers (Score:4, Insightful)
What is their alternative? Should they let others spew incorrect FUD all day long?
What is this trust you are talking about? If anything I'd say that Microsoft is one of the least trusted entities out there. They are so mistrusted that someone can spew FUD about their DRM schemes and people swallow it hook line and sinker.
Translation needed (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF?
A lot of effort to prevent casual piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
At best, this will prevent point and click piracy. With HD-DVD already compromised and Blu Ray on its way, I hate the idea of losing CPU cycles for a copy protection scheme that doesn't even work. If it comes to a point that everyone and their grandmother can pirate high defintion content with the click of an icon, can Microsoft make a Windows Update that removes this "feature".
Which required constraint (Score:5, Insightful)
Who decides if it requires image constraint?
Who else except me has such a call to make on my private property?
mildly flawed (Score:4, Insightful)
For the $400 per hour I get charged, that PhD can focus his whole attention on my MRI. If you job is important enough to complain about possibly degraded video, it's also important enough to not multitask. Listen to MP3's on your own dime.
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
So all this Microsoft article has done is only confirmed my conclusion that they're trying to give the movie studios every opportunity to rape the people who try to watch their stuff. This is just bullshit marketing spin.
every OS needs HDCP (Score:1, Insightful)
These guys do have a doosie though (emphasis mine)
Should we trust the medical system vendors? (Score:1, Insightful)
Those are the kinds of systems that need to work. Thus they should only be run on systems that have a history of high-quality and reliability. We're talking about Solaris on Sun workstations, AIX on IBM workstations, HP-UX on HP workstations, or IRIX on SGI workstations.
Those machines are designed for no-nonsense computing, which is exactly what is needed for many medical imaging applications. Even if staffers from Microsoft claim that the DRM features of Vista won't have any effect, it's not worth the risk when lives are at stake.
Anti-DRM Advocates are Missing the Point Here (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't help but think that you guys are missing the point.
Anyone building hardware and/or software to play back modern media currently has two choices:
1) Implement the restrictions and allow the content to be viewable.
2) Don't allow the content to be viewable at all. (i.e. No HD-DVD or Blu-Ray playback, period.)
Microsoft doesn't create movies or music. Their only interest in implementing these things is so that users have a way of playing content on their operating system. Apple and Linux vendors will also have to bend over for the RIAA and MPAA if they want to be able to support viewing the content. There's a chance that Steve Jobs will bend the universe to his will on this and avoid it, but it's doubtful. Linux users will probably just find ways hack around it, and ignore the fact they're breaking the law (no matter how ill-conceived that law may be; the point is that if Microsoft breaks the same law they would be sued into oblivion. It's simply not an option.).
Blaming Microsoft for this DRM fiasco is lame. If you don't like DRM, focus your blame on those that deserve it and buy your media from sources that don't promote it.
That said, one thing that could be argued is that Microsoft wields enough money/power that they could fight back against the RIAA, MPAA, etc. and block the media industry's attempts to create such lame DRM policies. Personally I don't believe they have this amount of clout, especially with the antitrust thing still hanging over their head.
So much about sharing (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh, how sick that wording makes me ! Instead of being honest and calling us 'retards', he dares to 'share our views'.
Am I the only one with an allergy against this use of the verb 'to share' ?
When people share their code by using a sharing licensing scheme, like BSD or GPL, Apache, whatnot, I don't develop rashes; rather appreciate the gesture.
But what to make from a person (scroll down on that article) who shares the following about himself:
I'm a Product Manager at Microsoft working on the Windows Vista launch team. I also work with key influencers in our user community. This means I get to do cool stuff, play with lots of electronic toys, travel the world, and blog about it at the same time. I know you're jealous
No, I'm not that frantically jealous about people who prostitute themselves to make a living
Re:No way! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Anti-DRM Advocates are Missing the Point Here (Score:3, Insightful)
Complex problems require complex answers. Simply, DRM is NOT the answer, but what is?
----Anyone building hardware and/or software to play back modern media currently has two choices:
---1) Implement the restrictions and allow the content to be viewable.
---2) Don't allow the content to be viewable at all. (i.e. No HD-DVD or Blu-Ray playback, period.)
Or 3) MS Should tell ALL media companies that this is not for thier customers, and refuse to play ANY of these medias until they FIX it.
---Microsoft doesn't create movies or music. Their only interest in implementing these things is so that users have a way of playing content on their operating system. Apple and Linux vendors will also have to bend over for the RIAA and MPAA if they want to be able to support viewing the content. There's a chance that Steve Jobs will bend the universe to his will on this and avoid it, but it's doubtful. Linux users will probably just find ways hack around it, and ignore the fact they're breaking the law (no matter how ill-conceived that law may be; the point is that if Microsoft breaks the same law they would be sued into oblivion. It's simply not an option.).
Why not "break the law" for fair use? If there's no players for Linux of HD based media, why not hack one together?
---Blaming Microsoft for this DRM fiasco is lame. If you don't like DRM, focus your blame on those that deserve it and buy your media from sources that don't promote it.
Wrong. They could simply tell the media companies to screw off and dont come back until the Customers can play their media without worry.
---That said, one thing that could be argued is that Microsoft wields enough money/power that they could fight back against the RIAA, MPAA, etc. and block the media industry's attempts to create such lame DRM policies. Personally I don't believe they have this amount of clout, especially with the antitrust thing still hanging over their head.
Wrong. Antitrust only occurred when bundling components with the OS itself. Refusing to bundle a cripple-system in the OS itself would go FOR the anti-trust lawsuit, so that a 3rd party company could create it, with "permission" from the media companies.
Windows Vista CP - Twenty Fears (Un-Answered) (Score:2, Insightful)
Tell ya what, Nicky. When my customers start calling me about why their computers are performing exactly as you and Microsoft designed [defectivebydesign.org], contrary to what they (the consumers) wanted, I'm going to lay it all out for them, straight and level.
I'm going to tell them who it was who sold them a windowless room and told them it was a wonderful vista. I'm probably going to tell them up whose rear ends they can shove their copies of Windows Vista, a task I'm pretty sure they'll want to do rather violently. Then I'm going to name half a dozen OS products that fit their needs beautifully, products without digital restrictions management (DRM) inhibiting their right to fair use, and not a one of which is a Microsoft product.
Oh, and just to be clear, Nicky, I don't sell computers or operating systems, just computer service and consulting. (I'm often told I should start selling computers, but it'll be a shop free of Microsoft products if I do.)
Re:mildly flawed (Score:2, Insightful)
it's still.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's Ok for the rich and powerful to have any advances and advantages from modern technology-but don't let those slavering "masses" folk have the same, even when it becomes technically and economically possible. Cuts into that "bottom line" thing, or at least that is their paranoid theory.
Enforcing artificial scarcity combined with the broken-windows economic model is the height of their intellectual business acumen.
No one disputes this is immensely profitable for them, given our current social and economic infrastructure. It remains to be seen if this will always be the case.
We left the caves a long time ago, seems like maybe it might be nice to leave the medieval period some time soon. But I guess the aristocracy isn't quite willing to give that up yet.
Users != Customers (Score:5, Insightful)
I think people are forgetting who are Microsoft's customers.
The end users are not Microsoft's customers. The end users who purchase Windows are very much in the minority - the overwhelming majority of users get their Windows bundled with their PCs. Microsoft's customers are the computer vendors and big media. Microsoft's customers are demanding that content be controlled and that users are given an incentive to buy new hardware.
The customer always gets what they want.
Re:Anti-DRM Advocates are Missing the Point Here (Score:5, Insightful)
If it weren't for Microsoft handing over our rights to the them on a silver platter, it would be the RIAA and MPAA bending over to the people instead!
If Microsoft had refused to support this bullshit, Steve Jobs and Linux users would have had a hell of an easier time of it.
No kidding.
Reports of Vista's suicide have been exaggerated (Score:5, Insightful)
i.e.
Driver revocation, tilt bits, image constricting and encrypting the PCIe bus only happen when you play premium content, and can only affect the content being played. If you're worried about all this don't play HD-DVD's on your PC, play them on your 50 USD Chinese HD-DVD player.
Ideas that your graphics card can be turned off remotely by Redmond, or that accidentally playing a web page with 'protected' content in the background will cause medical images to be degraded are plain incorrect.
Concerns about Audio and Video editing in Vista are unfounded as their content is unprotected and will not go through the protected video path. And if AAC is properly cracked then HDDecrypter.exe is unlikely to use a protected video path / HDCP montior is it?
Points about this open source graphics drivers are a bit more ambiguous, but it seemed graphics drivers were moving towards a closed source model anyway. And there is nothing stopping graphics manufacturers from producing non-HD-capable cards for the business market so it isn't going to drive up all hardware prices.
Having said this, *if* you want to play protected content legally then I think there will be pain.
People will be frustrated by the graphics card and monitor compatibility, and there is every chance that the 'Protected Video Path' will not work as smoothly as intended. Even now HDCP is causing problems with standalone players. And even if it all works concerns that you are no longer trusted on your own computer are valid.
However you can quite happily use Vista and not be affected by the 'content protection' at all.
If you thought Microsoft was going to be able to stop the draconian restrictions on HD-DVD then the think again - their biggest market is in standalone players rather than people playing the movies on their PCs so they could do without Microsoft if they desired. I don't believe Apple will be immune, although they'll probably roll it out on new iMac's and rely on its physical design to
In conclusion, there are issues with the DRM in Vista but if you never play protected content you will never experience them.
Re:A lot of effort to prevent casual piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
No worries - you'll be losing many more to Aero, which, most likely, won't work all that much better. Not to mention the new tcp/ip stack chugging away with QOS processing that will likely be nullified as soon as the packet hits your ISP's first server's kernel. Enjoy.
Re:And we are to believe the VISTA developers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh come on - if you're going to bash MS then at least bash them for VALID reasons
Microsoft support legacy customers to the detriment of new ones. Most of the problems with each release of their OS comes from trying to support old old old apps.
I wish they'd abandon their legacy users much more often than they do. Shit - I can still run turbo pascal for windows 3.1 forgods sake - that's just nuts!!!
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Knaves and Crackers (Score:2, Insightful)
If anything I'd say that Microsoft is one of the least trusted entities out there.
They worked very hardm screwing partners and customers alike, for decades to attain such status. They deserve it more than anyone else.
Favorite quote... (Score:2, Insightful)
How exactly does limiting the quality of the video translate into providing consumers with additional functionality?
Re:Knaves and Crackers (Score:5, Insightful)
But if it is true, and his shiny new computer stops working because of some stupid DRM, then negative word-of-mouth will kill Vista, at least for home users.
Which would be a pyrrhic victory at best. *DRM* is the real villain and proper copyright reform (if not complete replacement) is the real victory.
Re:Even if it was true... (Score:2, Insightful)
DRM on Vista must be all encompassing, and there must be no way to shut it off. If the DRM wasn't all encompassing, then it could easily be turned off, and there wouldn't be much point in having it. DRM only works if it is all encompassing.
I have watched Microsoft water down its "Microsoft Windows NT is a secure C3 operating system" promise with 2000, XP, and now Vista. Either the customer is in charge of their computer, or Hollywood is. You can't have it both ways.
Think about it: Do you want your surgeon making decisions based on computer output from code designed by a movie studio?
China is the Lurking Giant (Score:3, Insightful)
Next it will be the ChiPC computer line, and I'll bet the OS does not have DRM on it, and I'll bet it undercuts HP & Dell.
No special graphics card.
No special chips.
No VISTA
Microsoft has a LOT to LOSE by aceeding to the demand/acquescence to load the whole system to protect media companies from common consumers. Again, I think Warren Buffet said it right when he said he would not invest in Microsoft because he didn't understand the business model for the long term.
Re:And we are to believe the VISTA developers? (Score:3, Insightful)
>This includes security patches.
yeah
what that means is that they stopped developing patches for the OS but the patches that were developed are still available. I accessed both win98 and win2k patches last month. And last year I even got a NT4 box installed and patched but that was a mission!!
Is apple still developing updates for system7? How about a kernel patch for the kernel version pre 2002?
I remember IBM refusing to support a version of AIX that was 18 months out of date (well that was partly a SLA thing but the end result was the same).
I'm sick to death of defending MS against anti-MS FUD
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. Doesn't sell to the end customer; we don't buy Vista. That battle was fought 12 years ago and it's over. All the OEM's must have Windows on their PC, and they must have whatever Vista MS tells them to have.
The customers of MS are the content producers. These new content restrictions are music to the ears of Hollywood. The more we see articles like this, the better, because it reaffirms to the MPAA members that their content is "safe" when it plays through MS.
You didn't think trusted computing was for your or my benefit did you?
Re:Security and Quality (Score:3, Insightful)
Closed systems specifically disallow improvement, therefore locking in whatever level of quality or service they provide.
Re:mildly flawed (Score:4, Insightful)
Something that would seem extremely complicated to you, because of your lack of training, becomes merely routine for someone else after a while. Do you drive a car? Is it as tough as it was the first day you drove? Have you ever listened to the radio while driving? Do you think your driving has suffered because of the radio?
Re:A lot of effort to prevent casual piracy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Knaves and Crackers (Score:5, Insightful)
Your post seems to imply that Microsoft is blameless for leading the DRM charge. DRM and bad copyright legislation are things that we need to fix but that doesn't mean we should ignore the villains who advocate them.
You never saw Microsoft attacking a filesharing program but Microsoft was first in line to implement DRM. Microsoft volunteered to implement DRM measures and led the technological way in the DRM arena. Some companies resisted but caved, some caved without a fight but microsoft is the only company I know of that actually volunteered before any content provider could even think about demanding.
Re:Vista is DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Reports of Vista's suicide have been exaggerate (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No way! (Score:3, Insightful)
US computer industry yearly revenue - ~$300B+
MPAA member yearly revenue - ~$50B.
Take out the revenue generated from servers, business desktops, embedded devices and other such things which have zero relevance to the comparison.
Just why do you think that an industry that is at least 6x larger does not have a realistic chance of forcing hollywood to capitulate rather than the other way around?
Because Hollywood has something the computer industry wants, but not vice versa[0]. The vast majority of commercial, professional, high quality media is consumed through standalone devices like DVD players, set top boxes and CD players, not computers - and this is not likely to change in the near future.
The impact on Hollywood of computers not being able to play hi-def content would be negligible, because people will simply use their standalone devices. The impact on a computer platform that cannot play hi-def content will be more significant, because there is no alternative for the software developer (ie: no real source of alternative content that people will want).
[0] The iPod was a notable exception, but there probably won't be another such aberration any time soon.
Re:No way! (Score:3, Insightful)
False dichotomy. You're assuming that the only full-quality experience is provide by RIAA/MPAA-owned content.
Not in the slightest. I'm assuming that the vast majority of content the majority of people are going to be actively seeking out, will be sourced from the RIAA, MPAA and friends.
You'll need a _very_ convincing argument to demonstrate why this assumption is even unreasonable, let alone "false".
Realize your options, and the RIAA/MPAA is dead in the water.
It's not the people on Slashdot, that you need to convince of this.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:1, Insightful)
Did you report it back to MS like, you know, you should have done?
Re:Which required constraint (Score:3, Insightful)
The DRM controls technical aspects (such as the how/when/why the work can be viewed/heard), and that aspect is protected by DMCA, not copyright.
The problems with making DRM a concern of government is apparent to everyone with the exception of our lawmakers. I can only hope enlightenment comes to future lawmakers.
Re:Knaves and Crackers (Score:3, Insightful)
They're all DRM-enabling bastards. The reality is that the entire industry is leading the charge. Not just the MIAA and RIAA, but the game industry (draconian game copy protection), software makers (whens the last time you just installed a piece of off-the-counter software), and OS makers (try installing AppleOSX on a normal PC without jumping through hoops, or Windows without activating).
To pin it all on Microsoft flatters them, and misses the big picture.
Re:Reports of Vista's suicide have been exaggerate (Score:2, Insightful)
Citing a source = spreading FUD now? Interesting outlook you have there.
Re:Semantics (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems to me that the article is using the the term "Slashdot story" to imply that the information is all FUD by default, when the original source is, in fact, highly reputable. Perhaps you don't believe attribution is important, but I do. If the Weekly World News quotes Milton Friedman or Steven Hawking, you can't honestly dismiss it by saying, well, it's just a Weekly World News story.
Re:No way! (Score:1, Insightful)
You cannot violate the copyright on media you have purchased (say an HD-DVD or Blu-ray DVD) by playing it back on your computer. I should, of course, be able to play back the media I have purchased on my own computer at full quality. In this regard, Windows Vista is a problem in that Windows Vista downgrades the user experience on "protected" content.
A lawyerly answer does not change this.
Re:Knaves and Crackers (Score:2, Insightful)
You're wrong here. While most of the blame should be placed on those, who ship DRM-tainted content, Microsoft is clearly guilty of "aiding and abetting" this scheme. Much like someone lending a gun or a car to person clearly saying they need it to rob a bank. And for a share of the loot. So Microsoft is not the only party to blame, not even the party that should get most of the blame - but certainly they don't come out clean.
Given That Information Wants to Be Free (Score:2, Insightful)
Given That Information Wants to Be Free...
...and it's proven time after time that Information becomes free in the end.
If you have bits that somebody else wants to read, and those DRM'd bits come into possession of the public, given enough attention, they are going to be read.
Amateur Librarians everywhere are always ready for the freed bits with their BitTorrent.
Why haven't they learned that is a foolish, wasted, investment to develop or implement DRM technology?
In the final analysis, it's no less or more difficult to copy anything with DRM than without. It's just a fun and interesting challenge for the motivated and talented research hackers.
I feel sorry for any engineer who spends their time working on DRM. I suppose that some of them might be getting rich by selling this DRM snake oil to the willing buyers. I suppose the unwise among us believe they can create an unhackable DRM system.
Re:Vista is DRM (Score:1, Insightful)
This medical scenario was stupid to begin with (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Pay with DRM Money (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it fair for Microsoft to discriminate against people without $200 for VISTA but OSS developers can't descriminate against people who don't share and are evil.
Some medical content will be protected (Score:2, Insightful)