Hasta la Vista

[lugano]

Are you planning to install Vista on your PC ? I'd suggest to read this very interesting document before...

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt

 

[IWalker]

There is a lot of Chicken Little in that write-up, ("the sky is falling, etc."), though I do not argue any of his points...I do argue his estimation of the impact. First of all, the digital content protection is something that is not driven by microsoft...but is forced upon them...and it is a growing trend as technology advances. The more advanced people get in terms of getting around protection, the more convoluted the protection schemes get. HDMI issues around this, as well as the whole issue of SACD only being able to be output through analog are well documented, and are a big part of the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD struggle. Any other OS company that does not want to get sued for billions of dollars will also have to lock down their system in order to make it not allow for unauthorized reproduction of protected content. When you add a drive into a computer that processes data and feeds it as raw into a system...there are a million ways people can capture that data stream and do with it what they will, so locking it down on a Pc is much harder than in a 1 box solution. This is the cost of playing in the new Blue-ray/HD-DVD game...not some asinine choice by microsoft to overcomplicate things. There are many blind steps ahead before either Blu-ray or HD/DVD (or both or neither) emerges victorius, and some effective standard becomes available...until then things are being replaced and updated as fast as they come on the market.

If it is indeed true that HD content cannot be output at HD quality through any connection, then that is an issue. But, for me...what do I do if my blender won't heat up my sandwich? I use a microwave. I just won't adopt HD HTPC use until it does. It's not like I use it now, so this doesn't hurt me at all.

The "tilt bits" he referred to...likely are treated just like "tilt" on a pinball machine. If it reaches a certain level...there is a failure, and you should not keep just running the device. If it doesn't reach this level, you're fine. In all likelyhood, this will prevent more complete hardware failures (blue screen of death) and even hardware meltdowns...than it will be a useless inconvenience.

Until most of this comes out and we get a chance to see it for ourselves, I think I'll reserve judgement. From pretty much every thing I've heard from every other source, Vista is supposed to be pretty sweet. One long winded naysayer who makes wild speculation about the effect of his claims won't change that impression quite yet.

 

[Charliemike]

There is a lot of Chicken Little in that write-up, ("the sky is falling, etc."), though I do not argue any of his points...I do argue his estimation of the impact. First of all, the digital content protection is something that is not driven by microsoft...but is forced upon them...and it is a growing trend as technology advances. The more advanced people get in terms of getting around protection, the more convoluted the protection schemes get. HDMI issues around this, as well as the whole issue of SACD only being able to be output through analog are well documented, and are a big part of the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD struggle. Any other OS company that does not want to get sued for billions of dollars will also have to lock down their system in order to make it not allow for unauthorized reproduction of protected content. When you add a drive into a computer that processes data and feeds it as raw into a system...there are a million ways people can capture that data stream and do with it what they will, so locking it down on a Pc is much harder than in a 1 box solution. This is the cost of playing in the new Blue-ray/HD-DVD game...not some asinine choice by microsoft to overcomplicate things. There are many blind steps ahead before either Blu-ray or HD/DVD (or both or neither) emerges victorius, and some effective standard becomes available...until then things are being replaced and updated as fast as they come on the market.

If it is indeed true that HD content cannot be output at HD quality through any connection, then that is an issue. But, for me...what do I do if my blender won't heat up my sandwich? I use a microwave. I just won't adopt HD HTPC use until it does. It's not like I use it now, so this doesn't hurt me at all.

The "tilt bits" he referred to...likely are treated just like "tilt" on a pinball machine. If it reaches a certain level...there is a failure, and you should not keep just running the device. If it doesn't reach this level, you're fine. In all likelyhood, this will prevent more complete hardware failures (blue screen of death) and even hardware meltdowns...than it will be a useless inconvenience.

Until most of this comes out and we get a chance to see it for ourselves, I think I'll reserve judgement. From pretty much every thing I've heard from every other source, Vista is supposed to be pretty sweet. One long winded naysayer who makes wild speculation about the effect of his claims won't change that impression quite yet.

Actually, MS' version of DRM is completely pushed by them. They're trying to become THE format in DRM as with everything else like OSes, MS Office, IE, etc

Regardless, Vista has some very friendly things in it and some extremely unfriendly things ... DRM and drivers being two of them.

 

[socialxray]

I doubt that the content industry pushed anything on MS. They are a monopoly for crying out loud. If they wanted to they could easily have said no.

Nope, MS went to the content industry and said, "Hey instead of you guys figuring out how to implement DRM to protect your content, let us do it for you for free."

Why? Because DRM's main purpose is not to stop piracy my friends. Oh no, that is just how they justify stomping all over our fair use rights so that congressmen will pass legislation to secure Big Content's control. DRM really is a tool of unfair competition.

It's main purpose is to control the consumer, maximize profit on content that you paid for by making you pay for the same content more than once, and to tie the consumer to a particular platform.

Think I am crazy? Look at Apple. 80% of the content download market. Example: Last year I downloaded $200+ of music from iTunes. The Zune comes out and wow the screen is better than the iPod, the User Interface is snazzier than the iPod's. But I cannot play the $200+ of music that I bought from iTunes on it. Maybe I can carry a Zune AND an iPod around, naw that's just stupid. I guess I could buy those songs again for my Zune. Or maybe I'll just burn some CDs so I can re-rip them to my computer so that they are DRM-less all the while losing more fidelity...naw. I'll just wait for the next iPod to come out and hope it has a better screen and snazzier graphics. All the while my cousin is downloading the same songs off of limewire for free and can put his songs on any device that he chooses.

So what does this have to do with Vista? MS may not be the most innovative company but they are quick studies. They see what Apple is doing and they are going to try to do the same thing in the OS arena before Linux and OS X become too much of a threat.

 

[Rich]

It's main purpose is to control the consumer, maximize profit on content that you paid for by making you pay for the same content more than once, and to tie the consumer to a particular platform.

And as the consumer, each and every one of us has the power to decide whether to let them do it or not. I personally refuse to buy digital downloads for this particular reason. I enjoy my Ipod very much. But I don't buy my content from Apple. I buy it on CD, and download it myself to my computer. Because I refuse to spend my money on music without having a hard copy that I can use any way that I want. And when the recording companies start putting out CDs that prevent me from doing that, I will probably stop buying music from them.

Ultimately, they are looking after their own interests with less and less regard to how it impacts the average consumer, but they can only get away with it as long as we let them. If people get fed up and say, "OK, I'm not going to support this behavior with my dollars," the declining sales will have them changing their tunes (so to speak) in no time. Each of us has the ability and the responsibility to make a difference simply by how we spend our money. Food for thought.

 

[tonyc]

I am not really anxious to jump on to the Vista bandwagon, DRM issues aside. I suspect there will be alot of disappointed early adopters. I feel fortunate that my cheesy RCA HD DVD player works well with my Mitsubishi HDTV. I want a Blu Ray player, but I'm still ****ed at Sony for the SACD tease. I am also upset that the Blu Ray players won't play regular CD's. I think we consumers ought to feel a little paranoid about all the new technology given recent history.

 

[lugano]

For me, all this DRM thingie is a beeeg bullshit. There are a lot of things to be taken into account, and all lead to paragraph number 1. I will try to explain why.

First of all, the DRM reinforcement has been born together with the so-called high definition video. It seems that the Hollywood gods came down to earth and spoke to the industry clear principles: "Implement a bomb-proof drm or you won't ever touch our stuff". Now, to start with, there are not many people who can afford it (the hirez stuff), and those who can afford it will buy the original media IMHO. Yes, because such a CD, once ripped in full res will fill 1/4 of a normal being's hard disk, and in oder to make a pirated copy a lot of time must be invested. And why should I invest so much time to pirate a film that I will problably look at only once, maybe twice if it's a Disney and maybe 3 times if it's a concert ? (Ok, there's porn, too, but I'm not into it so I don't know what's the replay factor there, but anyway). Instead of giving them the finger, the industry saw the opportunity: we'll have to build more complex stuff, and people will have to buy it, and we have a good excuse for doing so. For them, it's a win-win; for us, the users, it sux bad, because the innocence presumption does not work anymore. We must put a chastity belt on, because we're all potential pirates, and the hardware guys can smile innocently - the Word came from up above, and we just bend our knees and expose our backs, so you have to do the same. Two greeds met together, and we are the ones that get it up our ... in clear words, I can download 6 GB worth of copyrighted material per day (anybody knows what a.b.s.m stands for ?) but nevertheless I keep on buying media, and I will do it forever, because I want to get the best. Of course, when I get the best and I pay for it, I want to own it, Rich has explained it far better than I can do. But the real winners - like Apple - are the ones that apply the KISS principle. And a worhty corollary to the KISS principle is also the well known "divide et impera", translated into "let computers be computers and media players be media players". A three-band mobile who can capture pix in 5 mbit res and also do films will never fit my bill - I will buy the separates instead, and I also will never buy a huge thing from HP which prints, scans, photocopies and faxes. Because it will fail faster than single components, and when it fails, it takes down too much functionality from me. Is it sooo hard to understand ?

 

[TheBobGoat]

I like to do what Rich does, buy the CD and then do what I want with it. My wife downloads music from a sony store...she also has a sony cell phone with 2GB of memory. Well, her music from the Sony Connect store that she has been using for a year does not transfer to the phone. You have to buy it from the OTHER sony store for mobile phones. She has to burn each track to a CD, then back to the computer to move it into the mobile folder and onto her phone.....so incentive to keep buying CD's

 

[lugano]

Rich, me and Bill Gates think the same way, it seems.

Gates said that no one is satisfied with the current state of DRM, which “causes too much pain for legitmate buyers” while trying to distinguish between legal and illegal uses. He says no one has done it right, yet. There are “huge problems” with DRM, he says, and “we need more flexible models, such as the ability to “buy an artist out for life”. He also criticized DRM schemes that try to install intelligence in each copy so that it is device specific.

His short term advice: “People should just buy a cd and rip it. You are legal then.”

 

[JonFo]

Same here, I refuse to purchase downloaded content with DRM.

Now, DVD-A/SACD/HD/BR all have some form of content protection, DRM, but it is not the kind that locks me into a specific piece of hardware or brand.

I want to be able to do what I’ve been doing with my 20 year old CD’s, and that’s converting them into more usable forms that suit my patterns today (ripping to central media server, playing on devices around the house of the network).

Now, Vista is a nice OS. A step up from XP. I’m using a Vista Laptop as I type this in Office 2007. Both are great.

The DRM embedded in Vista and associated hardware is the only way content providers were going to allow high value content (HD Movies) to play in those devices. But I strongly disagree with the whole thing, as ultimately it does nothing to dissuade the mass pirates. And eventually, it will get cracked and causal ‘fair-use’ duplication while happen anyway. So what’s the point of making it so cumbersome for everyone? Oh, yes, money…

 

[SteveInNC]

The DRM embedded in Vista and associated hardware is the only way content providers were going to allow high value content (HD Movies) to play in those devices.

I always wonder about this one - it seems to me that the content companies need the computer companies' consumers more than the opposite. While it's true that if one computer company can "do" media when another one can't that that's a significant strategic advantage, however, if MS and Apple both said "your terms are unacceptable - pound sand", who would blink first? I remember a few years back, major league baseball was negotiating new TV contracts and came out with some outrageous fee. The networks basically said, "uh, sorry, we'll pass". Baseball suddenly saw the light and found a more realistic number...

 

[SugarMedia]

Vista Powerpoint in action.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=752de72254

 

[IWalker]

So MSFT's DRM may be their own doing...but DRM in general was required (as mentioned above) for them to be able to play with that content. If anyone noticed...APPLE was the first to jump on the wagon on this with their proprietary format with ipods/itunes...now MSFT is doing the same thing and it's suddenly stomping on peoples' rights?

The concept behind DRM is legit...it's just poorly implemented. And as much as anyone complains about the cost being per device...think logically of the alternatives...if I can share it with myself, I can share it with anyone VERY easily. Noone much cares, but it's cheating people out of intellectual property...and it really should be fixed. Joining usability and security is never an easy thing...as they are fundamentally at odds.

Itunes uses their proprietary system that is no better than MSFTs, and is much less compatible, except with apple's own devices...but because Apple is the underdog, noone complains about monopoly type practices there. Devices all across the board play mp3 and WMA alike...but not AAC. /shrug

One solution would be to have some sort of music access card which holds just certificate information to digital content. You carry it around with you, and can plug it in to any sort of digital media player. If your license matches the content, it will play it. all the music you own is listed on this device. That way, you can have a million copies all over the place...but only listen to one at a time! Of course, then you have the issue of...what if I want to loan my friend this one "cd"...maybe a temporary transfer of license? it's his license for a day or however long you grant it...and then it reverts to you.

I don't know...but it's a tough issue to make both sides happy...and I hate to see the "microsoft is doing it, so it must be evil" comments that always surface.

 

[IWalker]

I always wonder about this one - it seems to me that the content companies need the computer companies' consumers more than the opposite. While it's true that if one computer company can "do" media when another one can't that that's a significant strategic advantage, however, if MS and Apple both said "your terms are unacceptable - pound sand", who would blink first? I remember a few years back, major league baseball was negotiating new TV contracts and came out with some outrageous fee. The networks basically said, "uh, sorry, we'll pass". Baseball suddenly saw the light and found a more realistic number...

I'd say with this one, with video, the computer companies would...since they're still trying to break into that market. While with music, it's a better question, though I think the music industry probably feels that they lose more money through computers than they stand to gain in the short term. Without DRM I would assume they would expect that to continue the same way.

 

[socialxray]

So MSFT's DRM may be their own doing...but DRM in general was required (as mentioned above) for them to be able to play with that content. If anyone noticed...APPLE was the first to jump on the wagon on this with their proprietary format with ipods/itunes...now MSFT is doing the same thing and it's suddenly stomping on peoples' rights?

The concept behind DRM is legit...it's just poorly implemented. And as much as anyone complains about the cost being per device...think logically of the alternatives...if I can share it with myself, I can share it with anyone VERY easily. Noone much cares, but it's cheating people out of intellectual property...and it really should be fixed. Joining usability and security is never an easy thing...as they are fundamentally at odds.

And in all actuality, Apple is the Mini-Me of Microsoft.

Seriously though, your point about the need for DRM might be valid if it had a snowball's chance in Hell at stopping piracy. It does not stop piracy. It never will. Call me paranoid but I do not think that is DRM's true purpose at all.

 

[lugano]

If anyone noticed...APPLE was the first to jump on the wagon on this with their proprietary format with ipods/itunes...now MSFT is doing the same thing and it's suddenly stomping on peoples' rights?

Yes,it is stomping. First, let's make a distinction between the 2 kinds of media involved: music and video.

1) Music has a high "replay" factor. There are songs that I listened to maybe 50 times if not more. There's only one movie that I watched 5 times, the rest are much less.

2) You can enjoy music while jogging, working, driving etc. Does not apply to video.

3) Apple's DRM is very loose - you can burn the same playlist of bought music up to 5 times on a CD; if you add or remove songs to it, it becomes a different playlist and you can burn it again. Or you can rip the burned CD and reset the counters forever. And what's the most important part, it does not require a change in your actual hardware, as Vista does. Computers could be sooo much faster without virus scanners running in software and inspecting every byte moving from A to B, and now with the operating system compressing and decompressing all data moving from a layer to another and checking tilt bits. It's like putting octogonal wheels to a porsche. That's what I'm criticizing. Vista's drm implementation affects your hardware and ALL the hardware prices are going to go up.

 

[IWalker]

I can't argue with a picture!!!

1. Socialxray - Saying "you can't stop all piracy, why try" is like saying "you can't stop all crime, why try" Because the people who own the content want their nickel, that's why! I agree with you, that in this day and age, there's no real way to stop pirating, and that by trying they are adding layer upon layer of crud to what was a very simple and elegant process, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a reasonable ideal/pursuit by the owners of the content. I don't want it anymore than anyone else...I just can see the business side of it too.

2. lugano - Gotcha on the hardware...very true. Implementing something for one piece (that I will likely never use) that drastically increases prices on all of the pieces I do...that doesn't make me happy. Sadly, I think that they're one of the few companies that has actually gotten somewhat of a handle on DRM, and realize HOW extensive the changes much be in order for it to have a prayer of working! But at what cost!? (too high, I agree with you)

3. What's the point of the replayability argument? seems like that means that security needs to be lower to allow for greater replayability on music...so higher security on video content would make sense, no? Besides, music can be converted from AAC (I'm pretty sure) so it's pretty ineffective as an anti-pirating measure anyway. Which I think brings us to the next point, which is that the only way to make it work is make all devices only able to play secure content? /shudder

Thanks for that note/explanation/clarification...I'm still learning a lot about this myself...appreciate the patience

 

[lugano]

3. What's the point of the replayability argument?

The point is that it might be useful to try to protect something that you keep on using without being a legitimate owner of it. But I won't "keep using" a movie - I will probably only use it once !

Therefore it makes no sense for me to put all this hardware and software into protecting something that:

1) I will only use once or twice;
2) it is already protected, to a certain extent, by its own HUGE size

It would therefore make more sense to protect music than video - but the problem with the music is that at a certain point it will turn analog (latest point: power amplifier's speaker outputs) and once it's analog, byebye DRM...it can be recorded with DRM stripped out . The best protection is therefore to make it so cheap that it makes pirating it not worth the time and effort spent into it - see iTunes Music Store.

 

[IWalker]

ah, gotcha! Thanks for the clarification. Sort of defeats the purpose of buying movies anyway, though, right? I generally only buy ones I absolutely love...almost as a thank you for making such a good movie...

The interesting part of a lot of this for me is, a lot of times, music get copied and movies get copied because it's so easy, not because someone really wants it. ie someone will copy all their friends' cds/dvds/mp3s...when they might have bought 1 cd that their friend had if the ability to copy wasn't there.

So, the impact on the actual industry is likely fairly light...especially on the movie side of things.

But, on a side note...if the movie "300" is half as good as it looks like it's going to be...I'm going to buy it as soon as it comes out!!!

 

[lugano]

The Apple iTunes store has sold more than 2 billion songs till now, at 99 cents apiece. That is 2'000'000'000 songs. And it starts right now selling movies at $9.99. I bet a lot of these 2 bilion buyers were limewire users before... It's the same thing as shareware. You might pirate a $199 bloated, buggy piece of software coming from a greedy company, maybe, but when it comes from a single guy which asks $19.99 for years of development, you pay him $25 and even send a bottle of wine alltogether. Because there is no greed - there is humanity, passion, dedication, communication and everything else. Some might go as far as calling it "common sense". And in the end it pays a lot, it's a win-win combo.