Anyone concerned about DRM in Windows Vista?

[Agent]

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).

Im think 'breaking' any copy protection is illegal now. But im no lawyer.


http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24638
Interesting read.

[TheAnimus]

i was told that if you did the pen trick so it could play on ur computer (not rip it, that is a definate grey area) that its legal, this was some months back mind, i'll ask a friend of mine (lecturer, comp sci, law and maths, dr is in comp sci) what he says.

a lot of things they print like that aren't always true. I'm not a legal person, so no one do this thinking i said its okay too, but i think its okay to get round copy protection, so long as ur not trying to do something illegal. (ie to watch it). But i'll bring that up when i speak with my lecturer next.

[TheAnimus]

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...

now this is a double post. (sorry)

Remeber when i said about WinFS been removed, people complain.... People complain if its there, because it uses more ram.

People complained about NT4.0 performance verses Win95. Because of the added proccess security, leak protection and other features i won't get into, it ment it ran slower, and each process took more ram.

Vista on buggie ness. Vista is the most flexible kernel i've ever seen for a "client" desktop OS. Its truely modular run time patching is brillaint (if it lives up to the white paper) Now it has the abailty to patch whilst running, a request that happens during the patch proccess uses the old one. This means no reboot to patch the kernel..... jinkies thats cool.

DRM is there to LET YOU play the new DRM content. You can still not buy it (assuming the studios provide content on them). Now MS have to provide all options they can make money from, this includes supporting DRM'd stuff.

Now theres a lot to be said for waiting for a service pack, a degree of maturity before jumping onto a new OS, but the attitude you take is just plain silly.

I for one really hope that linux will support DRM'd stuff, because when the movie industry decide its all their going to release, and i still want to be able to watch the painist in hidef, then i'll be buying it and paying for a windows license for my media box makes my head hurt.

[aidanjt]

FACT is talking a load of bollocks, here is what the british government says about copyright law:
http://www.intellectual-property.gov...rivate_use.htm
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uks...en_3.htm#mdiv9

In neither of these documents covering British copyright law does it say 'making a copy of the media you purchased is illegal', in fact the first url explains that making a backup copy of software is perfectly legal and a right.

I for one really hope that linux will support DRM'd stuff, because when the movie industry decide its all their going to release

DRM will require a licience agreement on part of the developers, and that'll likely include hiding the source for such a system, that will not bode well in the GNU/Linux community and I highly doubt anyone will bother with it.

[TheAnimus]

I wouldn't of thought source licensing mattered too much. I'm hoping to give a series of lecturers on cracking this comming term, including counter cracking methods, but most of these are fuetile. As has been shown with some commerical 'packers' its easyer to unpack the payload, than nuteralise the detonator. As such i think the DRM people would be stupid to think that they could ignore a platform. Except the mac, which ironically its so close to been a "trusted" platform its obsurd.

DRM isn't really a choice of the systems developers so much, it dosen't improve their sales, and harms them. They have to do it out of fear of not having things work

take the sony SonicStage (OpenMG/Symphony) thats sony records making more than sony electronics, both diometrically oposed in their views, niether wanting to give ground.

I hope its a case of going into HMV (which i can't trust myself to do at the best of times) and people thinking, no i won't get this one, i'd have to upgade my screen for DRM rather than quality. But alas i don't think its going to fly like that.

I still fail to see why people are upset about MS not supporting DRM.

[directhex]

In neither of these documents covering British copyright law does it say 'making a copy of the media you purchased is illegal', in fact the first url explains that making a backup copy of software is perfectly legal and a right.

(not rip it, that is a definate grey area)

no, it's black and white. from http://www.ukincorp.co.uk/s-BG-to-ac...rk.html#mdiv17 :

(1) The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to copying and copies shall be construed as follows.

(2) Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form.

This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.