Virtualization May Break Vista DRM 294
Nom du Keyboard writes "An article in Computerworld posits that the reason Microsoft has flip-flopped on allowing all versions of Vista to be run in virtual machines, is that it breaks the Vista DRM beyond detection, or repair. So is every future advance in computer security and/or usability going to be held hostage to the gods of Hollywood and Digital Restrictions Management? 'Will encouraging consumer virtualization result in a major uptick in piracy? Not anytime soon, say analysts. One of the main obstacles is the massive size of VMs. Because they include the operating system, the simulated hardware, as well as the software and/or multimedia files, VMs can easily run in the tens of gigabytes, making them hard to exchange over the Internet. But DeGroot says that problem can be partly overcome with .zip and compression tools -- some, ironically, even supplied by Microsoft itself.'"
devil's advocate (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:devil's advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
Another potentially real problem would be that vista as an actual OS in a computer runs slow as hell. People using virtual machines to 'test' Vista would end up with an even slower crummier machine and thus taint their perceptions for the negative. Nothing kills a product faster than the good old 'Word of Mouth' and there has been plenty badmouthing of Vista by all levels of tech support (not sales people though they gotta sell those Vista pieces of crap any way they can.
In short, the only 'acceptable' virtual environment for Vista would probably be Vista itself. They want to lock you into this crappy and crazy DRM scheme that they probably cooked up with Hollywood and hardware vendors to keep people on the upgrade treadmill indefinitely. (since if you cant watch the latest movies you need to upgrade to a computer that can run Vista, which means probably buying a whole new computer which means whole new hardware...)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:devil's advocate (Score:5, Informative)
I have as much reason to hate MS's operating systems as the next guy. No, scratch that, I have vastly more reason to hate MS's OS's than the next guy, having watched them attempt to undermine and destroy OS/2 back in the early 90's, back before it become fashionable to hate MS OS's. I remember having to put up with the constantly shifting Win32s extensions for Windows 3.1, which were modified for the sole purpose of breaking OS/2 compatibility. Or their (then new) "per-processor license agreements". I haven't run a Windows machine as my desktop since 1992, having run OS/2, Linux, and Mac OS X (in that order) since that time.
As such, it really pains me greatly to say -- Vista under virtualization is surprisingly decent and well behaved. I've been running the 64-bit Business Edition of Vista inside VMware Fusion on a new 2.16Ghz Core 2 Duo MacBook with 2GB of RAM, and it's surprisingly quick and agile. Sure, I don't get Aero (which just looks bad to me anyhow -- honestly, how is an alpha-blended window title a good thing?), and I'm not using it to play games, and I don't use it to browse the web or do e-mail or digital media, but overall it has been very well behaved, and has been surprisingly quick to boot and run. I've even experimented with it running digital video, and the performance has been very good.
Now of course, I can see why they'd be worried about their DRM stance. As the VMware audio and video go through a virtualized driver/device to the Mac's hardware, it would be easy to use readily available tools to hijack the stream (like Rogue Amoeba's excellent Audio Hijack Pro [rogueamoeba.com].
Now there is no way in hell I'd ever run Windows as my primary OS -- still think their UI scheme is garbage, and don't like the fact they have both systematically loaded their systems with crap to appease other corporations while punishing their own end-users (DRM), and that they've frequently promised features they've never delivered (anyone else remember when they promised a stand-alone MS-DOS v7? Or when they promised an OODBMS-based filesystem for Cairo starting back in 1996? That same filesystem they didn't deliver with Vista? Or how about when they finally decided it was time to introduce a new filesystem for the 9X line that instead of using a well-designed FS they owned all the rights to, like HPFS or NTFS, they instead exacerbated the problem with a band-aid solution and invented FAT32?). It's still not what I look for in a desktop OS, but as much as it pains me to say it, on a modern machine (and the latest MacBook is hardly top-of-the-line, although it's certainly quite a capable system), under virtualization, Vista actually runs pretty acceptably. If I had to use it as my day-to-day system (and I don't use it much at all -- it's there to support a development toolset for some embedded programming I'm peripherally involved in), it certainly wouldn't be slow or painful to use -- it's instantly responsive, and has so far behaved very well (i.e.: it hasn't crashed yet).
Strange but true.
Yaz.
Re:devil's advocate (Score:4, Informative)
To run the ATMEL development suite primarily, which I can't run otherwise, to program an ATMEL AT90USB microcontroller. It runs an IDE, compilers/linkers, AT90 simulator environment, Subversion, and the FLiP microcontroller board programmer.
I've experimented with a number of other applications, including IE7, WMP, and several of the other built-in tools. I still don't like how they organize their OS, or the crappy UI, but system responsiveness has not been an issue.
I don't advocate anyone use this as their gaming or media environment -- hell, I don't avocate anyone use Vista for anything. But in response to the GP's claim that someone might want to evaluate Vista under a VM and get a poor opinion of its performance, Vista 64-bit actually stands up quite well under virtualization, at least on my system.
(I will note here that the 64-bit version of Vista appears to run slightly quicker than the 32-bit version on my MacBook, both under VMware Fusion, but I suppose YMMV).
Any other questions?
Yaz
Re:So let me get this straight.. (Score:4, Informative)
Want to reply? Try my a little reading comprehension first.
Point 1: I didn't say I'm upset with Vista. What I did say is that I don't like the Widows Platform. As such, moving from running my embedded dev tools on XP instead of Vista really makes no difference to me -- I don't like either one, have a free license for 64-bit Vista Business Edition, and so use it in those few instances where I have to.
Secondly, I was defending Vista as actually running quite well under VM. So where do you get the idea that I'm upset with Vista? I dislike Windows because the entire line has been poorly designed, I don't like the UI at all, and MS routinely over-promises and under-delivers (how is WinFS, which was most recently supposed to ship in Vista and was yanked roughly a year ago "10+ years ago"?), but I don't have any particular hatred for Vista beyond it being another flavour of Windows crap.
As for your accusation of hypocrisy, Mac OS X doesn't have anywhere near the level of RM Vista has, and OS X's DRM is pretty easy to avoid: just don't buy songs from the iTunes Music Store. It doesn't have secured pathways that require handshaking with your video display just to play encoded videos, and it doesn't have a kernel you can only plug signed, vendor-validated extensions/drivers into (and which refuses to ply such content if you don't). It simply has a DRM decryption module built into a codec. That's it. It's easy to void and remove, and doesn't impinge developers abilities to develop applications or drivers for the system. Don't like DRM on the Mac? Drag and Drop iTunes to the trash and it's effectively gone. Then go and play your media in VLC.
So, before you post, at least use some reading comprehension first before you go foaming at the mouth?
Yaz.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Windows does have the edge in consumer hardware, but with the exception of high end 3D video acceleration, Linux has excellent support for at least one major player in each consumer hardware category (which is why Linux is now a real contend
Re:devil's advocate (Score:4, Insightful)
This system does have a number of problems (and in its current state is still victim to virtualization), and as mentioned above is very difficult to implement, but Microsoft and others are pushing very hard to make it work.
Re:devil's advocate (Score:5, Funny)
Damn that's hard to say with a straight face.
Nesting VMs (Score:2)
Most likely, this could be defeated by simply adding an additional layer of virtualization beyond the said "approved" virtual machine hosting the OS in question. This is actually not unlike some theoretical viruses proposed a while back that would install thems
Re:Nesting VMs (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So that creates two possible scenarios:
1. No software emulation of Palladium ever gets signed by the Palladium consortium, and thus every check against a Palladium key fails. Thus no stuff (DRM or otherwise) relying on Palladium runs in the VM.
2. There is an emulation of Palladium that gets a valid c
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Second, Palladium is based on phoning back to the mother ship. *Every single Palladium key* is
Re:devil's advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
The task is "allow A to send a message to B such that B can read it, but C cannot."
Under DRM, B and C are the same person.
Q.E.D.
The claim that a process will allow a customer to manage digital rights are akin to claims that a chemical process will allow a customer to change lead to gold. They are the claims of a fool, a charlatan, a newborn, or someone desperate. Or a devil's advocate.
Re:devil's advocate (Score:4, Insightful)
DRM can make it very inconvenient and very onerous for A to send a message to B, but it can never secure that message against interception by C where B and C are the same person. Telling worried rights-holders that one protocol is "less insecure", when security is impossible under all protocols, is a way to prey upon those worries and can be profitable, but never correct.
Said before (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it.
Alice (the publisher of the song) is using encryption to ensure that you and only you (Bob) can recieve the message. But Jack (also you) is being prevented from viewing the message.
The only reason that DRM is making any kind of headway is because of the hand-waving around terms like "dual key cryptography" and "license management". When you get right down to it, the content producers exist to deliver content to me. Once I get it, the only thing limiting my distribution of that content is legal in nature - I'm afraid of getting sued or prosecuted, so I don't.
Speakers can be recorded, screens can be videotaped. DRM can make it more difficult to copy content, but it will NEVER make it impossible. And the sad part is, DRM frequently makes it more difficult to VIEW content legitimately.
As a good example, I just set up a Windows XP laptop for one of my sales associates. I spent an ungodly amount of time going thru "Genuine Advantage" this and "Genuine" that, along with some dozen or more reboots. It's riduculously annoying, especially when updating a new CentOS system takes a single line:
yum -y update; shutdown -r now;
Microsoft has it wrong, and it may well be their undoing to find this out.
Re:Said before (Score:4, Insightful)
That's an extremely common view (as said in your comment title), but it's not true. Bob is your television, and you are Jack. I don't care how much cybernetics has progressed, we're not televisions yet, and we as human beings can't assimilate, store, and regurgitate digital content with any kind of quality.
> "Speakers can be recorded, screens can be videotaped."
Both are analog holes. If it's not a digital copy, it's not a quality copy, and thus not in a position to compete with the real thing. Do you want to pirate an mpeg of some guy taping his television screen, or do you want to bittorrent the actual dvd contents? In the absense of the availablity of the dvd on bittorrent, would you be more inclined to buy the material? (For this paragraph, forget that you are a geek when I use words such as "quality" and when I presume you're a pirate - I'm talking about average users).
> "DRM can make it more difficult to copy content, but it will NEVER make it impossible."
Doesn't need to.
Or to frame the absurdity of that argument in an analogy that I feel works well: "Police can make it difficult to commit crimes (and not get caught), but they'll never make it impossible. Therefore we police are futile. When will they learn?"
> "And the sad part is, DRM frequently makes it more difficult to VIEW content legitimately."
No argument. We should be thankful that they have as difficult a time picking a DRM standard as they do. Fragmentation impedes their progress in locking everything down: CDs versus DVDs for instance.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But it's not hard to create a rig that does.
Both are analog holes. If it's not a digital copy, it's not a quality copy,
Many audiophiles would disagree with you, and would argue that analog presents the be
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But it's not hard to create a rig that does [capture DRM limited digital data].
Then where is all this hardware? How do you plan to capture HDCP content with a "not hard to create rig"? The whole point is that DRMing the whole system leaves only analog methods, or exploiting flaws.
Many audiophiles would disagree with you, and would argue that analog presents the best "true" copy.
So an analog copy of a digital file is superior to a *perfect*digital*copy*? How did that make enough sense to you for you to type this?
See above points - it's not some guy with a camcorder of his TV, it's the "pro-sumer" guy who has good quality equipment that can kill DRM.
How? Ok, you get your HD cam out and record a plasma screen viewing of a Blu-ra
Re:Said before (Score:5, Insightful)
The millions of people pirating 128kbit crummy sounding MP3s and horribly compressed DivX copies of movies would seemingly be in complete disagreement with that statement. People downloading pirated content don't care so much about quality. Those who care about quality tend to also be the kind of people who also prefer legitimate copies, DRM or not.
Re:Said before (Score:5, Interesting)
At the rate technology is progressing, somebody with a HD projector, a HD camcorder and a few extra lenses and filters will be able to do an analog capture that easily satisfies the average guy with a 50" LCD display.
It sure helps that even today all of the satellite HD signals are highly degraded, often re-encoding from 1920x1080 to 1280x1080 and the vast majority of the viewers don't give a damn. Even the broadcast networks do shitty job, Fox is bitrate starved for no good reason, running their stuff at roughly 10Mbps when the available bandwidth over the air is just under 20Mbps. NBC and ABC are only a little bit better. Only CBS seems to give a crap about the quality of their broadcasts.
So, either consumer standards are going to have get a LOT higher or pricing on DRM'd products is going to have get a LOT cheaper if they want to compete with the quality level available via "free."
All that assumes that no bored grad students ever take an electron-tunneling microscope to the "tamper-proof" chips in these DRM systems and extracts the keys necessary to do the decrypt at the digital level. Nowadays that's not particularly expensive to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Because for the first time, virtually any copyrighted work can be perfectly copied at the click of a button, and distributed with close to zero effort.
This applies equally to the vendor. Nothing stopping them improving the efficiency of their distribution channels to match pirates.
Copying is a tool; it applies equally to vendor, consumer, pirate, whatever and does not suddenly justify DRM which messes the balance by making the average citizen guilty until proven innocent.
---
DRM'ed content breaks
Re: (Score:2)
DRM makes piracy *harder*. Not impossible, just harder, and that's all it takes to be effective.
The problem with DRM is that it's not only effective at slowing piracy, it's effective at locking consumers out of their own content.
I'd disagree with this. The cost of breaking DRM is a one time fee for pirates; once an unprotected version of the data has been released, the proverbial genie is out of the proverbial bottle. Large content holders, like the organisations that make up the MPAA, want the benefits of distributing their data across a large range of devices, and to the greatest possible proportion of the public, whilst trying to keep a small set of keys secret and hidden. We have problems securing even dedicated data centres f
Re:Said before (Score:4, Insightful)
So your saying that, new technology exists which makes distribution of content much cheaper...
And yet content producers want to charge the same or more for this cheaper to distribute content? While also restricting the customer more than they did with earlier distrbution methods? It looks like their business model is becoming obsolete, and theyre just trying to shore it up by restricting their own customers.
Why not sell a product/service that cannot be easily reproduced, such that your actually providing value for money... Movies shown in a cinema spring to mind, the cost of a cinema size screen and sound system is beyond the means of most people. And then there's live concerts for music.
You cant clone a live concert, because you cannot produce exact replicas of the artists (yet?) and the cost of setting up a bootleg cinema would be too high to be worth the hassle.
If you want to sell movies on dvd, they need to be priced such that copying them is not viable, and yes that is possible. Movie companies have access to factories where DVDs are mass produced at a cost of 1 or 2 cents each, no pirate group would be able to obtain blank media that cheaply, let alone the time and effort needed to write to it.
In short, piracy only exists because the original media is disproportionately priced compared to its production cost. DRM exists not as a solution to piracy, but as a method to wring more money out of their paying customers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So your saying that, new technology exists which makes distribution of content much cheaper...
Yes, I am. I can get a $2,000.00 computer shipped to me from across the planet for $40. That does not mean the computer should cost $40.
A film (or CD, or book, or whatever), costs something to create, costs something to manufacture, costs something to promote, and costs something to ship. Due to technology, the highlighted items are, or can be, very close to zero (cents, or fractions of cents). The other costs still exist.
The problem is that, once the other costs are paid, *anyone* can just step in and per
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, people will pay zero if they can get away with it - Welcome to capitalism.
"The expense ISN'T in the distribution. It's in the initial production but recouped at distribution time."
And there you have a flawed business model, that simply cannot exist in an open market.
"So only physical things have value? Anything that
a rig that does (Score:2)
I wonder occassionally why this seems so hard. I could easily set up a MythTV system (see http://www.mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html [mysettopbox.tv]) and use it with any number of cards (http://www.wifi.com.ar/english/hw-pvr.html [wifi.com.ar]) as a way to turn output into input. Then I could use my DVD player or CD player or even my main computer as my player. It could be considered an audio hole, but it would be a pretty high quality system, not relying on something like a hand held camcorder or audio recorder. Sure someday it might be
The advantage of digital for piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
The advantage of digital for piracy is not that you can get a perfect copy. Perfection is not the goal in piracy. In many cases a camcorder shooting a screen is fine. Instead, the advantage of digital is that the quality is not degraded further as an infinite number of generations are made. Traditional pirates were limited to making 2 to 5 generations of VHS tapes because after that, almost nothing was left of the original movie. But an analog ripped (not cracked) MPEG file can be traded all over the world without any further single bit errors (although some of that will happen at times). The internet scares the content industry because of the speed (the latest release can be in the hands of millions before the big opening). Digital scares them because it enables the multi generational sharing as we already see in P2P. The problem is, they are fixated on encryption, which is at best going to prevent the average Joe from making a perfect copy and sharing with his neighbor across the street. When Joe finally figures out how to make an analog rip or just shoots it off his screen with a camcorder, his neighbor might reject it because it's not perfect, but you can bet the world will eat it up via the internet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Both are analog holes. If it's not a digital copy, it's not a quality copy, and thus not in a position to compete with the real thing. Do you want to pirate an mpeg of some guy taping his television screen, or do you want to bittorrent the actual dvd contents?
Hi, I live in Canada. Recently, the MPAA has banned pre-screenings in theaters across *our entire country* because they think they lose too much business to camrips done in Canada.
Take a look at this: http://www.torrentspy.com/search?query=cam [torrentspy.com]
There are thousands upon thousands of people pirating some guy taping the movie theater screen. Yes, people really do want to watch camrips. If DVDs couldn't be digitally ripped, then people would just tape their TVs, and pirates would absolutely download that;
Apt analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The economic rights of a copyright holder have long been recognised throughout the West, but moral rights are less clear. They have been recognised in continental Europe since the late 19th century, with the BC dating from 1886, but
Re: (Score:2)
Both are analog holes. If it's not a digital copy, it's not a quality copy,
This is clearly nonsense. It's entirely possible to make a quality analog recording. How do you think they made music recordings before digital audio? That's right, they used analog magnetic tape, which can asound much better than the digital audio on a CD. How do you think they made those "digitally remastered" CD editions of Dark Side of the Moon? They used the analog master tapes, of course.
Likewise, motion picture film is ana analog medium, and it has far greater quality than even digital High Defini
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you are wrong here. Analog copying could be a problem when in the process an analog copy was made multiple times and the content would degrade a bit further each time. However, the first analog copy will be more than acceptable (and might well be indistinguishable from the original by a set of viewers doing a double blind test).
So, if you can make a good analog
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
. If it's not a digital copy, it's not a quality copy, and thus not in a position to compete with the real thing. Do you want to pirate an mpeg of some guy taping his television screen, or do you want to bittorrent the actual dvd contents? In the absense of the availablity of the dvd on bittorrent, would you be more inclined to buy the material?
A programme I attended at a Canadian east coast university had high international enrollment. One of the guys was from Chechnya. We had a pretty good instructional technology setup in one of the lecture spaces, so we could snag a movie off the Internet and take a break at two in the morning to watch said movie while scarfing popcorn and pop.
We had End of Days* up on the screen one early morning when the Chechnyan Dude comes in and exclaims that 'this is like going to the theatre back home!'. The movie
Re:Said before (Score:4, Insightful)
Point is it's not hard, IMHO crypto as a means to avoid piracy is a joke, there's no point until we DO get that encrypted tap straight into the brain - the reason it's there is to piss off and control the customer
Ridiculously annoying, and sometimes impossible (Score:5, Interesting)
Being a generous IT worker, when an employee's machine goes bad I'll sometimes give them my own machine if they need something fast. Last time I did this, a copy of Vista which I purchased directly from Microsoft's website suddenly became "not genuine". Not wanting to fuss with it, hoping I'd be able to get my machine back and make my copy of Vista genuine again, I ended up passing the time frame (30 days?) allotted for using the OS, then was locked out with a red screen saying "this copy of Microsoft Windows Vista Business is not genuine". This statement was clearly a lie if taken literally, but discussing vocabulary destruction through marketing would be quite a digression.
So, I went back to using my dual-boot linux partition and another spare PC for my day-to-day work.
Fast forward a few weeks...
Last Friday I got my laptop back, put the hard disk back in, and what's this? Vista still said it was not genuine. I tried to re-activate online but it said I couldn't do that because that key had already been activated. (Gee, you think? Maybe when I bought it?) So, taking the only course left, I called Microsoft on the phone and entered a series of numbers about 30 digits long. When the computer couldn't validate my install it forwarded me to some Indian call center, a place I'm familiar with because I've had to do this process more than a few times.
But this time was different... (Don't get your hopes up, it wasn't different in a good way. I was on the phone with a Microsoft offshore call center, remember?) Not only was my personal system down, but apparently their whole call center system was down. They were unable to validate my install and told me I'd need to call back later after they got their system back up and running. Apparently there was no other backup call center online, I simply had to hang up and call back another time when their system was back up.
Back to my trusty dual-boot Linux partition with its `sudo bash -c 'apt-get update && apt-get upgrade && reboot'`, or my Mac with its `sudo bash -c 'softwareupdate -i -a && reboot'`
Oh, and Jim Allchin can kiss my ass. "It's rock solid and we're ready to ship." Rock solid as in paper weight. What good is a stable OS that won't let you use it?
Re: (Score:2)
It should be pretty good for Microsoft's bottom line. If they can force you and eveyone else to rebuy their "O/S" 3 to 6 times over the lifetime of the box/lapbox at $100-400 or more, how can that not help MS's bottom line. That ought to make the stock analysts and the Mini-microsofts of the world happy. Besides, think of Steve Ballmer's starving children! You want them to be warped for life because they don't have two different Mercedes-Benz cars for e
Re: (Score:2)
sudo -H -c "yum update"
You reboot only if the kernel changes.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't bother fixing it, just booted into whatever distro I had installed at the time (I think it was Slack 9) and got all my important stuff off the windows partition. Then I turned it into swapspace.
Re: (Score:3)
Slightly off-topic, but I'd suggest changing that to yum -y update && shutdown -r now. Using "&&" in leiu of ";" will prevent the system from rebooting if the call to yum isn't successful (can't contact a server, whatever). On many systems you can even replace "shutdown -r now" with simply "reboot".
Re:Said before (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
yum -y update && shutdown -r now
Other than the fact that your way turns both into a single return (for error checking) is there any particular difference? Both get the job done, both result in a fully updated CentOS. (or RHEL or Scientific Linux or Fedora Core) And, what kind of error-checking are you going to meaningfully get on a system reboot?
Pedanticism for its own sake is wasteful. There are many, many, MANY ways to skin a cat. But in the end, the only thing that matters is wheth
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Big difference. The shell doesn't evaluate additional arguments of an "and" directive if the first argument evaluates to false. Thus, using && guarantees that the shutdown will not occur if the update fails. That's a good thing for any command in which a failure could potentially leave your system in an unbootable state (e.g. an OS update).
Re: (Score:2)
Using &&, if yum errored out because your internet is down, you dont reboot your system needlessly.
And I agree, the original "correction" was completely unnecessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Using &&, if yum errored out because your internet is down, you dont reboot your system needlessly.
More importantly, if yum crashed and you ended up with a corrupted RPM database or half-installed package that might render the system unbootable, you won't shutdown your system in a potentially unrestartable (or otherwise broken) state.
The correction is not only unnecessary, it is demonstrably a poorer method.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually checking that something worked before proceeding to the next and dangerous step seems to be wi
xkcd has to be mentioned here.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Come on! Why not link to the xkcd page [xkcd.com] itself? There is an alt text to those comics which will be missed if you directly link to the png.
Tens of Gigs? No way. Try 10kilobytes. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure there's a legal use for this. I just can't think of one...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It sounds like there is a lot of confusion, and admittedly, I'm not going to read the article, because it seems to come from there.
Vista apparently requires an authenticated path from th
Re: (Score:2)
You could simply capture only the portion of the screen which is "protected" from capture by the guest OS. That's where the interesting stuff is going to be.
Re: (Score:2)
With a VM, you'd probably have the easiest time using virtual screen captures (no need to look at the real screen, just look at the right spot in the player's decoded memory). In your described case, you don't need
Re: (Score:2)
End result, everyone can run the VM and watch the movie, then discard the VM again.
I guess that's what they fear. What they really should be worried about though is that they've put themselves in a position they can never hope to win by using DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know whether it's technically an emulator or not, but it's close enough for me.
No way (Score:4, Funny)
No way. I told my mom and my aunt not to trade those VMs and they listen to me.
I don't want to see them in jail.
you don't have to see them in jail (Score:2)
Man just the blurb drives me nuts (Score:2)
www.ubuntu.com
Re: (Score:2)
Very well. But just in case that changes, remember that you can temporarily stun it by uttering 09 f9.
(Note: I didn't include the full number above because I felt it would not have helped the rhythm of the sentence at all, and that the joke itself of inserting it everywhere was by now overdone. But since I care whether people question my geekdom ("I care! I care plenty! I just don't know how to make them stop!"), here it is for goo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can watch DVD's on Linux by writing "xine dvd://" or, if I have the DVD image ripped, by writing "xine dvd:///path/to/dvd/image.iso". Is that what you meant ?
Re: (Score:2)
Sad, but true.
Not the whole story (Score:5, Insightful)
Last year I was in Taiwan running WinXP under VirtualPC - with the appropriate upgrades after Microsoft had bought the product from its creators - and I had zero trouble.
This year, I'm in Taiwan again, but this time I'm running WinXP under Parallels. Shortly after my use of the machine here on the internet, I got this message telling me that my hardware had significantly changed since the original installation and that I needed to re-validate - I don't recall the rest of the message, but it involved Genuine Advantage and suggestions of unusability. So, even though I'm not carrying my original box around with the keycode (would you??), I decided to be brave and tapped on the warning from the tray as instructed. Took me right to an MS page at what appeared to be Microsoft-Taiwan, and it was quite persistent that I should continue to be routed to some Chinese language page. Long story short, I got some embedded wizard launched, got the MS phone number for the USA (Bangalore notwithstanding), called in, got re-validated and woot, woot, woot.
It seems - very strongly to me - that the only thing that Microsoft could have detected was my location in a way that didn't make sense to them, and I think I triggered something that decided I had a pirated copy. I really haven't had any use of my machine or anything change in any other way to cause me to suspect anything else.
So, how long before business travellers - and we fill a lot of 747s, virtually all running Windows - picking up VM for one reason or another start pitching fits when they discover that they can go into a full-screen presentation and be tagged publicly as potential software pirates?
I couldn't understand why MS had a real problem with Vista under VM, but if the cause I posited is in fact true, then the problem Microsoft is worried about goes back to the XP codebase. Say anything about Vista's new codebase, but it's all from the same company..... so, I think DRM is a specious explanation but it allows them to hide behind something where they can try to claim some innocence regarding VM - when in fact the OS may be more seriously broken w.r.t. VM than they're admitting.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
* use OS X and need Windows
* use Linux/laptop and need Windows
* need or desire to partition an entire OS so that during a presentation, if casually called away from laptop, fewer worries about "innocent" snooping
Business guys adopt tomorrow what the propellerheads did yesterday. Last time I had trouble w/ a net connection for Windows in a hotel in the Bay Area and the drogue started to give me dos
I hope *IAA keeps wasting thier money on DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
These jerks think they define popular culture. They don't.
DRM doesn't work. [freshdv.com] People steal the stuff before it's encoded with the DRM. The key is always distributed with the content or recoverable.
DRM can't work. [wikipedia.org] Their attempts are hilarious. In order to be perceived by a human it has to be rendered in analog format, at which point capturing and encoding it in an open format is trivial in all cases.
DRM shouldn't work. [blogspot.com] If they won't sell me the content for the device I want to play it on when I want to play it where I want to play it, I'll convert it [blogspot.com] and to hell with what they think I should be allowed to do. Fair use.
DRM is a security risk. [slashdot.org] I will not surrender control of my PC to render your content.
The more they annoy people, the more visibility worthy indie acts [harveydanger.com] get. People will listen to their popmart derivative garbage less [magnatune.com].
I am personally opposed to straight pirating the stuff but I have to admit my conviction on the subject is wavering at this point.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Did I say interesting? I meant scary.
Re: (Score:2)
You want irony? (Score:5, Funny)
Hazards of monopoly (Score:2)
Microsoft has nothing to do with Hollywood (Score:5, Interesting)
> and Digital Restrictions Management?
Microsoft has nothing to do with Hollywood. There are waiters in Hollywood who have forgotten more about movies than anyone at Microsoft will ever know. Even the accountants use Macs here in California.
Microsoft does not even make a movie player that plays the standard format. Calling Windows Media Player or Zune a movie player is like saying Microsoft Word is a Web browser because it can also display text and images. That is a very unsophisticated view that you can't sell to someone who actually knows how the Web works. Well, in Hollywood, they know how movies work. MPEG-4 was coming for many years, then it was standardized, then it became the format in iTunes+iPod, then the iPod took off. MPEG-4 is also HD DVD and Blu-Ray and AppleTV and iPhone and PSP. MPEG-4 is also the standardization of the QuickTime format which all the content creation tools are built around, even those like Avid that compete with Apple, so it arrived already having mature development tools. One day there was a QuickTime update and all of my tools could now generate MPEG-4 H.264 as if they had always known what it was. Further there is a free open source MPEG-4 streaming server that runs on every Unix and also Windows, it also has no streaming tax. Finally, most of all, MPEG-4 has no "content tax" while Microsoft's Windows Media business model depends on a content tax and everybody in both music and movie industry already knows better than that. All this happened already with sheet music and player pianos 100 years ago. Nobody is going to use an encoder that spits out a file which you can't copy or share without paying a tax to Microsoft, because everybody wants their movie or album to sell 100 million copies (even if it actually has no chance) so when Microsoft says aw it's only a penny per copy, people do the math and say no you are raping me with that, I can buy an MPEG-4 encoder for $20 and use it to make all the copies I want and not owe anybody anything why don't I just do that? And MPEG-4 just happens to already be integrated into all my tools and integrated into the hardware of consumer video playback so there was never any there there with Microsoft and movies. Even if they built a technically sound system or one that had a cost advantage, they would have to overcome the fact that nobody wants to work with the evil typewriter company.
All you are seeing here is another way that Windows sucks. Core computing functionality that customers use and want and even need to stabilize their Windows software on a real operating system is falling victim to Microsoft's lack of focus and hopeless star fucking. Why isn't Windows ready to be a good typewriter today? Because of its magic DRM.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> MPEG-4 has no "content tax"
Really? How about that licensing fee that all MPEG-4 use requires [wikipedia.org]? The folks who own the MPEG-4 patents fully intend to make you pay for their use. Personally, I'd call that a "content tax", since anyone who sells an encoder or any device that embeds an MPEG-4 decoder (E.G.: a BluRay player) has to pay it.
> there is a free open source MPEG-4 streaming server
Really? I'd love to know what it's
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What I find most interesting about the analogy though,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BZZZT! (Score:3, Interesting)
"Content provider revolt" is a pitiful excuse that no one with a brain really buys.
AH HAH! More hardware (Score:4, Interesting)
"What could MSFT do next to require me to once again throw out my computer and buy the latest and greatest hardware in 2008 or 2009?"
Virtualization. MSFT Vista 4.0 or 3.51 or 95/98 or 2009... Would require:
Min of 1GB of RAM.
1TB HD (supplied by FibreChannel disk).
Quad Core CPU
Dual Core GPU.
All I wanted was to be able to surf the web and play Civ. I now require the computational power of an IBM p590.
Re: (Score:2)
Using &&, if yum errored out because your internet is down, you dont reboot your system needlessly.
You were floored because by a ~1Ghz P3, 768M RAM and a $30 video card ? A ~6 year old PC you can get basically for free because companies throw them out ? Specs that are basically the same as those for equivalent OSes ?
Disappointing (Score:2)
DeGroot? (Score:2)
Choose something else (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, you've got many PCs most of which run Windows XP [nytimes.com]. They've been crashing every Exploit Wednesday [windowsitpro.com] since October. Every one has a license that was paid for three times (six times under Software Assurance [microsoft.com]). You have seventeen core apps. Some of them are paid for several times. Some have a licensing server so that some people can use them when other people aren't, and come with a utility so that priority users can kick off nonpriority users. A couple of them are free. Four of them are nagware that came with your PCs or that you thought were a good idea at the time. One is an in-house app that only runs in a DOS box and accesses dBase files stored on your server. Every month a couple get pwned [theregister.co.uk] for no detectable reason.
Even if they don't run Windows [theregister.co.uk] you've paid over and over. You have to because they've made it happen what "enforcement" will happen if you don't. [microsoft.com]
Every software vendor you buy from makes it clear the software you bought is being split [symantecstore.com] into "basic" versions that include most of the features you use, and an "Enterprise" version that includes must have features you can't live without. Both new versions will be annual subscriptions instead of purchases. Naturally, the Premium version you require will cost many times what you already paid and the cost will be annual rather than once each. Of course they're entitled to this conversion of your purchase into a "revenue stream" because they've upgraded their product from an application to a "platform framework" that "optimizes" your "TCO".
You're thinking about investigating this multicore thing that people are talking about, but it seems impossible to reconcile the software licenses with multiple "cores" on one or more CPUs. You want to do server consolidation, but every server app has to be evaluated both by a professional enginner and by a hideously expensive team of lawyers who also want to audit every piece of software you've purchased since 1974. Your CPA wants to know why you licensed the same software 3-6 times for each PC, and why you're buying licenses for software that won't run on the PCs they're purchased for. And what's this entry for "SCO Linux licenses"? You live in dread of being audited [com.com] by jack-booted thugs, [bsa.org] not because you're pirating but because the danger of a paperwork snafu that destroys your budget is nearly certain and the slightest discrepancy is going to get you canned.
I have one question: What the hell are you thinking? Get off the train to crazy town. The free stuff [ubuntu.com] isn't just good, it's better. So much better that you're not going to believe you put up with this crap. If it's truly free you don't have to account for each copy/user/use/year/processor/incidence. It's not free because it's less worthy: it's free because you're not the first person to be disgusted by the experience you're having. Pay for support. Nobody ever got sued for terminating their support contract. Figure it out. The world has changed. The future is open.
Re: (Score:2)
Though you did miss out the bit that the wording of most commercial software licenses is incredibly hard to follow - I sincerely believe that 90% of them are written by lawyers who are briefed to make sure it's practically impossible to understand them, much less follow them to the letter.
However, there remains just one practical problem: IT works for the business, not the other way around.
When you have a free, real alternative to Sage M
Its about content path, no VM images (Score:3, Informative)
Is stupidity abound or something? The comment from the article about copying multi gigabyte images is ludicrous and makes one ask if the guy has ever used a VM let alone knows anything about the basics of DRM.
First things firsts. Virtualization means that the physical hardware and virtual hardware are not linked. That means, in no simpler language, if you want to use a TV, monitor recording device or whatnot to view your VM: you can, and the VM doesn't know. This is a technological threat to DRM implementations inside a VM, because they cant guarentee the path outside the VM.
Why you would copy potentially dangerous VM images from one PC to another when you could simple capture the output, i don't know.
Once upon a time NES ROM carts implemented their own I/O multiplexing - the vast majority still aren't emulated today because it's tedious work. Guest OSes inside VMs will continue to find ways of obfuscating their data (after all the guest inside a VM doesn't even have to be the same architecture as the host!)... its anybody's game once you're outside of the Guest.
MS don't want people to virtualize their software for the same reason DRM is a CEOs best friend: they can charge more for less restrictions.
If you have to pay $100 extra for the Ultimate or Pro versions of Vista to get virtualization, and people want virtualization, it can be seen as a valuable extra. Extras, not to be confused with added value, increase price premiums through added cost to the purchasing party.
However, the meat of the issue is not that people spoke out about DRM in such obvious and clear cut language, touting the anti-competitive stance MS has taken, but bloggers and writers are steering the focus to Linux which is offering a mirad of virtualizations for free. The only sensible stance is to do the same - just like MS did with VirtualPC... MS can't afford to be completely leapfrogged in any area.
The thing the irks me is that people are constantly barking up the wrong tree with regards to industry ties with companies and DRM. The "MAFIAA" (as it's been put) is convincing companies to make DRM provisions, but they can't force the implementation on to end users if companies can't/don't want to/disagree. MS allowing virtualization is nothing more than a technology response to Linux. No one is warming to DRM, DRM is not dying any time soon. This is market forces at work. Granted market forces are slow, and cause no end of problems for us now...
Only need the VMs once... (Score:2)
So what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Dont forget Application Virtualization (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Whats more likely (Score:5, Informative)
JVC hdtv, name and shame.
Re: (Score:2)
Your money has an HDMI port? Which currency is this, Sealand's?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It is possible that content providers can blacklist/revoke the encryption key for a HD-DVD or Bluray player, but this would only brick the disc player, not a TV.
In short, no signal - either junk or deliberate - can permanently disable the hdmi port on a tv unless there is something wrong/faulty with the tv design itself.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Xbox (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly though, doesn't Michael Chertoff look like a necromancer? Google him and find a picture (the first one on wiki is nice) and picture him holding up a skull commanding the zombie hoards. Makes me giddy like a schoolgirl, but I have issues.
Virtualization enables easier migration (Score:2)
Once such virtualization (assuming it is sealed against any DRM exploits and doesn't provide for mobilization of a VM) is allowed, that creates a situation where Microsoft doesn't have control of the hardware. Then another OS could be easily run side by side (since virtualization can create multiple virtual machines). And people might try some free operating system, discover that it almost meets their needs, and will have an opportunity to gradually migrate over to using that free operating system for all