Is Vista crippled by its own HD content protection?

Some well respected sources like IDG are seriously questioning Vista's HD and premium
content copy protection, claiming is disempowers legitimate users from watching
their legally obtained HD content:

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index....67;fp;2;fpid;2
Quote:
"PC users around the globe may find driver software is stopped from working by Vista
if it detects unauthorized content access. Peter Guttman, a security engineering
researcher at New Zealand's university of Auckland, has written A Cost Analysis of
Windows Vista Content Protection. He reckons Vista is trying to achieve the
impossible by protecting access to premium content. Users will find their PCs'
compromised by the persistent and continuous content access checks carried out by
Vista."

Full text:

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...vista_cost.txt
" A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection"

Quote:
"Executive Summary

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. These issues affect not
only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the
protection measures extend to cover all hardware and software that will ever
come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista (for
example hardware in a Macintosh computer or on a Linux server). This document
analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral
damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry.

Please read the full text at
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...vista_cost.txt
before posting a reply - thanks.

black clouds wrote:

> This has already been amply dealt with if you'd just use the simple
> search features in this newsgroup. With all repect to Peter Guttman
> who holds a Ph.D in computer science, the article is deliberately
> misleading. Check out this excellent responce by Paul Smith:
> http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/2006/1...a_drm_nonsense
>

Without wanting to suggest silly things like 'experts can never be wrong' or
anything like that, Peter Gutmann is more than just another random Ph.D;
he's a respected specialist in areas pertinent to the discussion, with
practical experience of working on some pretty important projects.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gutmann)

I wouldn't blindly accept anything someone says just because of their
previous reputation or anything like that, and I'm not suggesting you do so
either, but I would definately suggest that his opinion cannot be dismissed
with just a few "with all respect" comments. There has definately been a lot
of hyperbole on both sides of the 'arguement' here, but I personally believe
there is a case here to answer.

Thank you for the link to
http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/2006/1...a_drm_nonsense

I liked his final point:
"So what we need to do is pressure the film industry, not Microsoft, and make sure
they don't roll out this level of copy protection and in my opinion give up the whole
DRM effort entirely."

I guess the movie industry is not about to release premium HD content without any
DRM - it would be an unrestricted licence to copy-as-you-please.





"black clouds" <blackclouds@discussions.microsoft.com> schreef in bericht
news:E91914B7-E139-450B-9832-F5F208F2530A@microsoft.com...

> This has already been amply dealt with if you'd just use the simple search
> features in this newsgroup. With all repect to Peter Guttman who holds a Ph.D
> in computer science, the article is deliberately misleading. Check out this
> excellent responce by Paul Smith:
> http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/2006/1...a_drm_nonsense
>
> You may also read this previously posted reply if you please:
>
> I read Peter Gutmann's article, which I must say I found rather distressing.
> It's not the added cost, which will probably be quite minimal and will
> certainly go down with time, that concerns me, but anything that affects
> system performance is certainly an issue of considerable concern. Not that
> I've noticed any system slow down with Vista, to the contrary my PC has been
> performing much better with VIsta then it ever did with XP Pro. But how could
> slowing down a new OS help Microsoft anyway?
>
> I then reviewed the power point presentation prepared by ATI that Peter
> refers to in his article.
> http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...2_WinHEC05.ppt
>
> Not much of a presentation but Peter Gutmann seems to think it's of vital
> importance as he quotes from it on several occasions.
>
> Unfortunately there is nothing anti-microsoft or anti-vista about the
> presentation despite the way Peter quotes from it so freely. In fact if
> anything the presentation is pointing out the importance of incorporating
> this DRM protection in developing PC technology.
>
> With all respect to Peter Gutmann, who has a PhD in computer science and is
> a respected journalist, in this case I feel he's actually misrepresenting ATI
> in the way he quotes from their presentation. Allow me to quote the "session
> goals" found on page three of the presentation:
> "Explain why content protection is so important to the PC platform"
> After reading that, what in the world would lead one to think that ATI is
> opposed to incorporating DRM into their technology? Yet Peter quotes them as
> though they were in full agreement with his arguments. That's misleading, and
> the fact one has a PhD does not put them above being questioned.
>
> Besides he makes sweeping statements and conclusions that in my point of
> view betray his real intentions. It may be within his rights to conclude:
> "The only reason I can imagine why Microsoft would put its programmers,
> device vendors, third-party developers, and ultimately its customers, through
> this much pain is because once this copy protection is entrenched, Microsoft
> will completely own the distribution channel..."
> but I beg to differ. I might ask why he so quickly concludes it's all a big
> evil conspiracy. Could it not be possible there might be some other motive
> for including this kind of technology in Windows Vista?
>
> Peter concludes his arguments by pointing out that a PC is not a
> "Premium-content media player." That may well be but does that mean it's
> condemned to never be? Again notice what ATi says in the very power point
> presentation Peter likes to quote:
> "The Windows multimedia PC offers a flexible and convenient platform for
> managing and viewing PREMIUM CONTENT in the home."
>
> What we have here is a lack of vision.
> The real question is, “DO YOU WANT TO PLAY PREMIUM-CONTENT ON YOUR PC?
> Because if you do, as ATI point s out in their presentation, you need to win
> the confidence of premium content producers and that is exactly what
> Microsoft has tried to do.
>
> "The studios, however, do not want to release their content on the PC
> platform unless they are assured that it will not be illegally copied"
>
> So perhaps the issue here isn't "world dominion" by Microsoft, but rather a
> simple issue that Microsoft is working with others (you see they are not
> "almighty") to ensure that in the future PC users will be able to view
> premium content on their computers, and my guess is other OS systems will
> have to move in the same direction unless they want their user to be reduced
> to turning their PC's into an expensive typewriter.
>
> I have no doubt that DRM has problems, and I have no doubt that people will
> find ways around it but if Premium-content producers are content enough to
> continue to allow their content to be made available to the average PC user,
> then thank you Microsoft for trying to find a happy medium for us all.
>
> I'm living in a city where I couldn't by an original game, program or OS for
> all the money in the world. I can by Adobe Illustrator or a movie before it's
> even come out in DVD, for just over a dollar, but who knows what other junk
> ones getting with it, besides the fact half the time things don't work right
> and half way through a game your whole computer comes to a grinding stop. In
> order to get anything original I have to order it over the internet, let’s
> hope that the hassles of trying to get around digital rights will become more
> of a bother then it's worth, and people around the world start buying
> legitimate products. Maybe then software companies and artists will start
> lowering the cost of their products due to growing market.
>
>
>
>
> "EU XP user" wrote:
>

"Robert Moir" <robspamtrap@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:u2Yy01CNHHA.5012@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> black clouds wrote:

>
> Without wanting to suggest silly things like 'experts can never be wrong' or
> anything like that, Peter Gutmann is more than just another random Ph.D; he's a
> respected specialist in areas pertinent to the discussion, with practical
> experience of working on some pretty important projects.
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gutmann)
>
> I wouldn't blindly accept anything someone says just because of their previous
> reputation or anything like that, and I'm not suggesting you do so either, but I
> would definately suggest that his opinion cannot be dismissed with just a few "with
> all respect" comments. There has definately been a lot of hyperbole on both sides
> of the 'arguement' here, but I personally believe there is a case here to answer.

There is a case to answer indeed.

Peter Guttman made several pertinent observations, all of which are just being
ignored bij MSFT.

The scope of "trustworthy computing" goes way beyond DRM for premium HD movies.

Good Lord, how did people get so stupid? DRM was nothing to do with MS. MS
putting in DRM is so legitimate users can display DRM protected content.
It's the sellers of said protected content ie. RIAA/MPAA calling the shots.
If MS didn't included it, they could get sued like everyone else. Note also,
linux nor apple can display this content unless the user installs whatever
cracks or hacks that get around it. So go ahead, use linux and you'll use
whatever crack/hack the 'nix community comes up with and brag how you don't
use the evil empire while blithly brushing away your being a pirate. lol

"EU XP user" <invalid@123.invalid> wrote in message
news:%23rKLzOCNHHA.3288@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Some well respected sources like IDG are seriously questioning Vista's HD
> and premium
> content copy protection, claiming is disempowers legitimate users from
> watching
> their legally obtained HD content:
>
>

In message <O5iBOYRNHHA.3944@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl> "Peter M"
<phmcn@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Good Lord, how did people get so stupid? DRM was nothing to do with MS. MS
>putting in DRM is so legitimate users can display DRM protected content.
>It's the sellers of said protected content ie. RIAA/MPAA calling the shots.
>If MS didn't included it, they could get sued like everyone else. Note also,
>linux nor apple can display this content unless the user installs whatever
>cracks or hacks that get around it. So go ahead, use linux and you'll use
>whatever crack/hack the 'nix community comes up with and brag how you don't
>use the evil empire while blithly brushing away your being a pirate. lol

No, MS wouldn't get sued, the content simply wouldn't play.

What do you think would happen if all the major vendors simply said no?
RIAA/MPAA doesn't have some magical right to code within your computer
to let their content play, it would simply force them to offer content
in a format users can play, or not, their choice.

Microsoft is choosing to add support.

Long term, it makes sense, the next step will be to lock down on what
hardware can be used in the name of enforcing DRM. Unsigned drivers
will become a thing of the past.

After that, it's time for the motherboard and BIOS to get DRM built in,
and only run signed code to ensure there is no violations ground up.

If those BIOSes happen to only boot into signed bootloaders, well, so
much the more secure we all are, at least until you decide you want to
run something other then Microsoft software.

In other words, Microsoft is looking at Apple and copying their approach
to hardware, oddly enough, at the same time as Apple is opening up.

Amazing how the grass can be greener on both sides at once, huh?

(And myself, I flat out refuse to let Linux on any machine I control,
and Apple is on that list too -- I'm a Microsoft user, but perhaps a
cynical one)

--
Death is life's way of telling you you're fired.

"Peter M" <phmcn@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:O5iBOYRNHHA.3944@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Good Lord, how did people get so stupid?

Good question- let's start with how it inflicted you so severly.

>DRM was nothing to do with MS.

Bullshit. Those dinosaurs at the music and movie industry
need Microsoft and computers a hell of lot more than Microsoft
needs them. Microsoft got on it's knees like some used whore,
and now they expect everyone else to just bend over.

Go ahead, grab our ankles.

Carry on.


-Michael

Screw DRM. MS does not have to have any DRM logic in their software at all.
No one's forcing the movie industry to relese DVD's etc. MS and DRM is
simply their attempt to lock up distribution.

Same sad state as music. Never have I heard any argument back to the music
industry that no-one forced them to move from vinyl to cd's. They did it
solely because they saw short term profit. They should be told if they don't
like the fact I can make a perfect copy of a cd and give it to a friend then
don't sell cd's, sell vinyl or create your own device to control the
content. Same for movies is my frame of mind.

What I find really funny is the expense they go thru to try and stop
copying. The few DVD's I can't readily rip I simply play on regular DVD and
record on pc. Doesn't bother me the slight guality loss any more than it did
with vinyl to my reel-to-reel/cassette/stereo vcr.

Vista will not be on any pc I own in foreseeable future. Blimy, I only have
XP on one of six pc's I own now solely because of the activation etc. greed.
And Note - it's a 98SE pc I do most of my "ripping/copying" with.


"Peter M" <phmcn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O5iBOYRNHHA.3944@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Good Lord, how did people get so stupid? DRM was nothing to do with MS. MS
> putting in DRM is so legitimate users can display DRM protected content.
> It's the sellers of said protected content ie. RIAA/MPAA calling the

shots.

> If MS didn't included it, they could get sued like everyone else. Note

also,

> linux nor apple can display this content unless the user installs whatever
> cracks or hacks that get around it. So go ahead, use linux and you'll use
> whatever crack/hack the 'nix community comes up with and brag how you

don't

> use the evil empire while blithly brushing away your being a pirate. lol
>
> "EU XP user" <invalid@123.invalid> wrote in message
> news:%23rKLzOCNHHA.3288@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

HD

[reposted]
MICHAEL wrote:

> Those dinosaurs at the music and movie industry
> need Microsoft and computers a hell of lot more than Microsoft
> needs them. Microsoft got on it's knees like some used #####
> and now they expect everyone else to just bend over.

While the content providers could not do this without the co-operation of
the OS providers, this isn't just a Microsoft problem (Apple do DRM too and
always have done, Linux advocates are seeing their desktops potentially
either containing proprietary DRM code or unable to play content).

Your over-simplistic comments do the subject as much of a dis-service as the
comments you were replying to.

Hi,

> It's the sellers of said protected content ie. RIAA/MPAA
> calling the shots.

I don't agree. Microsoft CHOSE to get in bed with RIAA and Hollywood
studios because of lucrative future partnership deals that they can
jointly cash in on and split the profits. They also have the same ethos
when it comes to "intellectual property", so they have to support each
other's bogus claims of ownership over things that were simply stolen
from artists and independent developers who could not afford the same
lawyers as the big corporations.

Apple didn't buy into it completely, the DRM in iPod is more like Pseudo
DRM and that's why it was so popular.

I realize we can't change the tide of these big corporations, but I hope
those who impose the toughest DRM will lose the most money. I think it's
already happened to a point with iPod, which crushed Microsoft's
original attempts at media protection strategy.

There's plenty money for everyone, but DRM is not the way to get it.

--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)