Anyone concerned about DRM in Windows Vista?

[timread]

For those who want to see what information Microsoft have publicly released on DRM in Vista, see the document available from this page: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device...t_protect.mspx

It's 45 Pages long! MS have big plans here - it just remains to be seen if everything actually makes it into Vista. For those that can't be bothered to read the doc, here's an excerpt that should get your attention:

"We are working actively to ensure that a Longhorn PC supports the needs of both consumers and content owners, and that it works seamlessly across a broad range of other devices, networks, and protocols. As we move towards the next evolution in the distribution and consumption of content, we are working on many fronts to create new experiences that drive the industry forward. This requires the ability to respect business rules across many dimensions, including:
• Content coming into a PC from cable, satellite, over the Internet, or on physical media such as next-generation DVDs.
• Management of the content on the PC – including providing a robust infrastructure that allows ISVs to add value without needing to worry about supporting DRM natively in their applications.
• Respecting business rules as content leaves the PC."

[TheAnimus]

indeed as timread has summeried, the DRM in vista, is to allow people to recive (and i assume server editions allow produce) DRM content. Thats the idea.

So you might hate it, as its allowing poeple to use this horrific format, but hey apple do that all the time, and no one made such a fus about USB host controller divergence.

DRM is always falibal. As long as its not illegal to get round it (for instance those not quite audio CDs, adding felt tip to slow the reader down so standard software can play them isn't illegal i belive).

[nez]

Why cant MS put as much effort into adding usful features like WINFS in vista rather than putting 45 pages worth of DRM, they keep dropping good features, infavour of DRM.


nez

[TheAnimus]

WINFS was dropped because hardware hasn't improved enough to provide adiquate performance, not because they didn't put enough money into it.

[dangel]

WINFS was dropped because hardware hasn't improved enough to provide adiquate performance, not because they didn't put enough money into it.

I have to say I doubt that. More likely is that they're seriously behind and just can't get it all done and fully tested in time. People will not accept a slow, unstable, insecure OS from MS anymore.

[directhex]

WINFS was dropped because hardware hasn't improved enough to provide adiquate performance, not because they didn't put enough money into it.

hardware hasn't improved enough? don't make me laugh. BeFS could do almost everything WinFS was promised to do, on a dual 66Mhz PPC, in the mid 1990s

[Stoo]

I've got to say, I'm not really concerned about DRM in Vista, because I won't be using it..

Vote with your feet people

[PinkPig]

I am slightly worried about some of the worst of the rumours I've heard - e.g. only supporting monitors with HDCP support, otherwise you get a low resolution video, and so on. I would love to hopefully say that this isn't realistically going to happen, but given how often some people upgrade their hardware, and given how little the rest are likely to care about a reduced quality video on their old monitor, I'm becoming increasingly concerned.

It's all very well to say that you won't use Vista - but when games are using WGF 2.0 and everyone else has Vista will we really have a choice? It all depends on how much of a positive reason there is to upgrade, I guess.

[Stoo]

We always have a choice, for me personally, I only play one or two games on the PC, so it's not really a problem.

[TheAnimus]

I have to say I doubt that. More likely is that they're seriously behind and just can't get it all done and fully tested in time. People will not accept a slow, unstable, insecure OS from MS anymore.

it was suggested it was due to not enough improvement in HDD speeds data throuput and seektime.

I have a 15k RPM hdd, with 3.2ms seek time, thats a good 5 years old. Still can't buy anything thats twice as fast, but you can twice capacity. Moore's law is derived from the idea you can double the density every 18 months, as such HDDs platters tend to follow the pattern.

MS get complaints from people about making the newer OS run slower, so they get in trouble no matter what they do.

Indexing service turned on by default will make slow comps slower. But they get critised (by mostly MAC users who want to think they had it first... lol) for it not been turned on by default.

now this is another classic show of people not really knowing what DRM exsists in vista, because i know i cba to read the full 45 pages, i mean were talking about WinFS now

[dangel]

it was suggested it was due to not enough improvement in HDD speeds data throuput and seektime.

I have a 15k RPM hdd, with 3.2ms seek time, thats a good 5 years old. Still can't buy anything thats twice as fast, but you can twice capacity. Moore's law is derived from the idea you can double the density every 18 months, as such HDDs platters tend to follow the pattern.
:

All well and good but since now RAID comes for free with motherboards, and drives are cheap.. No so much of a problem. There's no need to spend a lot of money on super fast drives when a RAID 0 does so much for so little.
HDs are now cheaper than disposable storage in some cases..

[Jonny M]

All well and good but since now RAID comes for free with motherboards, and drives are cheap.. No so much of a problem. There's no need to spend a lot of money on super fast drives when a RAID 0 does so much for so little.
HDs are now cheaper than disposable storage in some cases..

No off the shelf boxes are going to have Raid 0 though. Sorry to say this, but Microsoft aren't really targeting you with this OS, they are after large OEM contracts.

[aidanjt]

So not only do the studios want you to buy expensive new HD copies of your current DVD collection, they also *need* you to buy a new DRM compliant screen to watch it on.

This is nothing but a con to cash in on Joe soap again, DRM equipment will require a licence (just like CSS), which will be an inherently weak content protection system, forcing us to 'upgrade' our already good kit to use their ripoff formats.

Content protection has been attempted as longer than the digital age, from analogue cable/satalite had signal scrabmling, someone figured out the algorithim for it, designed a board to decrypt it.. then came the cards, someone cracked it, then games devs started cd-keys, cracked in no time, then cd media 'bit-mangled' protections, cracked. DVD CSS, cracked. MS Product Activation, cracked before WinXP hit the market. When will the industry stop fruitlessly attempting to stop blackmarketteers?.. All it achives is annoyance for legal end-users and they know it.. This is just another industry cash-in.

All media can be bitwise copied.. Not only that, but the industry attempts of copy protecting media is actually ILLEGAL by UK copywrite law that states that a customer is allowed to make a copy of their media for backup purposes.. Regardless of what content providers licences say.. They are not government, their word isn't law. They need to be more responsible, stop overcharging people, stop feeding us crap. They need to make doing business with them more attractive than the black marketeers.

F.A.C.T. adverts are full of crap and they are also grasping at straws.. Right now, buying intellectual property from Black martketeers is 1) cheaper, by orders of magnitude, 2) more protective of personal privacy (and will be even moreso when DRM comes about), and 3) usually comes with 'homebrew' tweaks and enhancements in the case of software.

The fact is, DRM will do NOTHING to secure content, its only realised goal will be to track legal users and obtain more cash from yet more licencing schemes.

[herulach]

One question, when has anyone had to sign an EULA before buying/opening a CD/DVD? personally never, and as such i dont think the whole, its in the t+c's read them argument doesnt really apply.

As far as the new display thing goes, my understanding of it is that you need one for HD content, but can output non HD content with no problems, and assuming its like the 360 it only needs to be DVI. HD is never gonna catch on if they need you to upgrade your TV/Monitor to use it. Its not like when DVD was released and you could upgrade your current kit for like £100, plus a sound system if you were bothered.

Youre talking thousands of pouns of investment in a new TV. Take a family with maybe a 30" widescreen, probably cost somewhere in the region of 800 quid, are they gonna pay another grand at least (since HD is pointless without a display that supports 720/1080p ie plasma/lcd/rear projector) just so their display is lightly crsiper? Or are they gonna keep their old tv +dvd player?

[cm_uk]

F**K Vista... gonna be so buggy for a few years and just a ram eater and no features that people will want to pay for just a ram hogging GUI...
If they continue then its gonna be linux all the way...
besides people will crack all the cack they try and lock us down with

[Spunkey]

F**K Vista... gonna be so buggy for a few years

exactly. I never use any MS software, unless it's version ends in at least 'SP2'