I have followed the issue of drm and this rabbit hole just gets deeper. For me, it not wether any body is for or against drm, but the implication in the manner in which microsoft is attempting to implement. For my first post on this subject, I post the following quote that I posted in a microsoft blog called vista content protection "20 questions and answers" (link provided below)

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/ [...] entmessage

The following is what I wrote:

Itspec,

one area of the document you posted talks about how dmca effects the rights of fairs use; and, thus, could be found unconstitutional.

The paper you posted also states "the potential for unforeseen applications and possible misapplications of the DMCA anti-circumvention regulations becomes obvious once one recognizes that copyright industries are not the only entities using technical measures to protect digital information". This area is curious as it does not address part of the "unforeseen applications and possible misapplications" of the dmca which has occurred in the case of vista.

For example, Virtualization offers a number of consumer benefits including but not limited to interoperability between systems, increased secruity through sandboxing, and decrease costs for developement of consumer software. However, Microsoft has implemented a policy whereby competing virtualization technologies such as vmware and parrells will be put out of business (see previous links and comments to gun vapor for more on vm issues). Microsoft is also imposing high cost and limitations for any use of vista in any vm (even a microsoft vm) which further reduces its potential usefulness and benefit to the consumer. In my opinion, this policy is in effect because of concern that virtualization has a potential to create a hole in the drm content protection of vista. The net effect of this policy is that microsoft further restricts consumers choice leaving microsoft with yet another monopoly --- this time in the virtualization market. The interesting point is that I don't think that microsoft is just trying to establish a monopoloy because it can --- but because it must so as to ensure that this technology no longer has a "potential" to create a hole in dmca scheme. There are many other technologies which pose such a potential to create a hole in dmca scheme --- some are obvious (ie:graphic cards) --- in this case microsoft has sought to control the market place by imposing limitations through licensing agreements on the hardware vendor so no new graphic cards can be produced that have a mere potential to create a hole in a dmca scheme --- this is quite significant as any type type of revolutionary break through in grapic card peformance must now deal with all of the complexity and restrictions posed by drm. This makes new innovation in technology much less likely and also means it will take much longer. Its also interesting to note that if a grahpic card manufacturer would decide to just foget about the all of the drm stuff and just focus on innovating new technology and making the product better -- it would be black balled from the pc industry through the licensing agreements by microsoft - once again microsoft is "limiting" the future of the entire pc market because of concerns of the "potential" of a technology to create a hole in a dmca scheme.

A big part of the problem is that drm is negatively impacting technologies that do not necessarily relate to drm; but only have the "mere potential to create a hole in a dmca scheme". How many other technologies will be eliminated or become increasingly laced with limitations so as to negate or hinder its userfulness just because the technology has the "mere potential to create a hole in a dmca scheme". Consider the case of virtualization technology --- Microsofts solution --- lets get rid of it from the market or let microsoft control it and limit its use. Consider the case with video card manufacturers ---- microsoft solution --- let us control what you can make through licensing agreement or you are black balled from the industry". Where does one draw the line??? How many other technologies represent a mere "potential" to make a hole in a dmca scheme and could be negatively effected by this policy ???

chlshrock --- its interesting that your link shows that the legislation is backed by the consumer electronics association, --- these are the hardware people who make the pc parts --- perhaps they are feeling really restricted with all of this drm stuff being dumped on them. Hope they win.

In my second post on this subject, I offer the following quote from the same link (20 question and answer) provided in previous comment by me:

clshrock,

I agree with the concept of what the article is saying; but wonder how much hardware vendors hand's are tied due to the licensing agreement. Peter guttman's article states "“It is recommended that a graphics manufacturer go beyond the strict letter of the specification and provide additional content-protection features, because this demonstrates their strong intent to protect premium content”. What this means to me is that if a hardware vendor would develop a new video card for a linux system without comforming to the new drm requirements (thereby making the product to have a potential to create a hole in dmca scheme), the hardware vendor would be blackballed from the rest of the pc market.

As the article from boing boing stated:

"Microsoft's DRM requires that device makers pay Microsoft a license fee for each device that plays back video encoded with its system. it also requires every such vendor to submit to a standardized, non-negotiable license agreement that spells out how the player must be implemented. This contract contains numerous items that limit the sort of business you're allowed to pursue [ie: no linux devices that has a mere potential to put a hole in the drm requirements], notably that you may not implement a Microsoft player in open source [linux] software" - end quote.

As quoted above, microsoft is limiting the sort of business that hardware vendors are allowed to pursue and this includes limiting open source hardware support--- One question I have with the above quote from boing boing is what is a "microsoft player". Is this is a high def dvd drive? Is it a piece of software that can relate to anything?? (if any one would have a copy of the actual agreement --- please provide a link.) To me restricting the business of business a vendor can pursue is illegal. In essence, it is a form of illegal leveraging through "strong arm" tactics to make all vendors conform to the microsoft standard. Graphic card vendors should not have to defend or become liable just because somehow a software hacker has now used a card to gain access to a "high def player" or "microsoft player".

One thing i noticed in the link from itspec concerning the new proposed legislation for changes in the dmca is that a hardware vendor could not be found liable in the event that there device should be used as a tool to circumvent the dmca requirements -- this surely would alleviate a lot of the above concern.

Please note I have given few, if any comments, as to being against "the concept of drm to protect copyright content". This is not to say I am for or against drm, but believe there is an underlying issue of far greater concern whether you believe in drm or not. My major concern is that the manner in which drm is being implemented through vista under the auspices of dmca reduces, severly hinders, or eliminates certain existing technology as well as future innovation while reducing consumer choice and increasing costs. It also is creating a policy which encourages microsoft to become more monopolistic and controlling of every area of the pc market including the controlling of hardware.

In reality mpaa and microsoft is now controling what technology can or cannot exist even if it does not relate to the use of content protection --- and apparently the cost of all this is of no concern. I dont know if anyone understands what I am saying as it really goes beyond wether anyone likes drm or not. I believe there is more to say here --- but do not know how to express all my concern with this. Perhaps, some fellow commenters can help or expand --- feel free to agree or disagree.

You're post fell on deaf ears so to speak, few here want to talk about DRM. The sorry truth about all of this seems to be that the US government has recruited Microsoft to be the central padlock supply for the DMCA. How many times can you rehash the MS vs. DoJ monopoly decision and see the final result as anything other than the recruitment that it was. Everything is political at this point since the DMCA got enacted through politics.

Here is a simple path to the truth, nothing fancy simply honesty. These kids don't want to read our posts, and I doubt they would listen if this was in person? The problem is not so much the DRM but the fact that the DMCA was passed by the US law makers. The DMCA is a guaranteed cash cow that Microsoft and many others will use to squeeze more money from consumers.

Consider just a few points’ people:

1) Since Microsoft and Sony both sell game stations most people would say that they are in competition. My common sense tells me that the appearance of competition is a farce. Microsoft and Sony are business partners. Most people that I know have both game stations. If you don't understand how the two are connected then you are blind. Look at the facts pertaining to just these two companies.
a) Both are in desktops at the same time.
b) Both are in laptops at the same time.
c) Both are in AACS LA as co- owners.
d) Both have game stations in the same homes.
e) Both have a conflict of interest to stock holders unless they have a silent partnership.

2) This takes a leap of logic. Please imagine that something goes wrong and Microsoft closes its doors tomorrow forever. You paid nearly $400.00 for Vista and even though Microsoft is gone you still want to use Vista. Since Microsoft is closed how it is that Vista gets activated? This comes down to a faulty presumption that you only own the disc and have no rights to the content. If Microsoft went belly up the content would no longer be supported but still be protected.

As I stressed in a few of my posts we are facing what can only be called a "PROTECTION/EXTORTION RACKET" or a "MEGA MONOPOLY". Many here seem to enjoy being considered as sheepole or in the words of Bill Gates, "The average computer user has the mind of a spider monkey."

Great.

You insult us because we don't believe everything you say 100%.

Guess what? You should never believe everything you read... regardless of the source. I'm not denying that Microsoft is setting itself up to make a load of cash (every corp does), but you have to sift through all of this and try to figure out what is real and what is speculative FUD.

I appreciate the time and effort you and dsharp9000 put into your posts. I'm taking a passive break reading and watch M$ stumble with this ridicules situation.

You are a fool Zoron. I insulted not a soul!

That wasn't intended to insult our intelligence? You could have fooled me...

You know, if so many people hadn't come out and said that Windows XP would be the end of civilization as we know it, I'd be more apt to listen. I get tired of hearing the same thing over and over again each time MS releases a new product. If we're truly as bad off as you say we are, then Vista will fail and you can all point your fingers and laugh. Personally, I won't care either way. I just hate hearing how Microsoft's next operating system is going to bring the apocolyse upon us all. We survived XP... I'm sure we'll make it through Vista... regardless if it lives or dies.

That wasn't intended to insult our intelligence? You could have fooled me...You're overly sensitive Zoltran so it's easy to fool you. You have what amounts to "misdirected hostility" since Bill Gates did in fact say that, "The average computer user has the mind of a spider monkey." Since you and others get on these threads and switch the topics it goes this way. This down hill sort of tit for tat to me is boaring. I can't help it that you are an average computer user. However if the shoe fits, then by all means whear it well Zolfart.

You didn't specify "average user" did you? Bill Gates may have, but you certainly didn't. You addressed the people in this forum; Bill Gates did not.

You didn't specify "average user" did you? Bill Gates may have, but you certainly didn't. You addressed the people in this forum; Bill Gates did not.Many here DO SEEM content to be SHEEPOLE! On the other hand Zoron I happen to admire you since you can kiss my ass but I can't.
KISS KISS Baby

Har dee har har!

Comedy gold folks!

Anyway, most people are taking the "wait and see" stance rather than jumping on either bandwagon right now. I'm reserving my final judgement on Vista until it gets enough market penetration to actually see what's going on. There's always a lot of negativity surrounding the realease of a new Windows... and I'd like to see for myself how much of that negativity is warranted. You'll excuse me if I don't immediately call for the destruction of Microsoft.

People have a right and a cause to be concerned whenever DRM is involved. However, I'm not sure that all this fuss over Vista is justified. If it turns out that it is, I won't buy it... but I'm not going to immediately dismiss it because of anything said here... I'll just be more cautious about my decision.

Hey Zoron that is the first time that you made sense here! I built a P-III 1GHz system that started with ME and lasted for 2 years on XP before I bought new hardware. My point is that I have for the most part enjoyed using MS OSes and Office. Regarding vista; I will be the DRM manager on my computer. More then that I happen to be super cheap. $400.00 is completely insane. Numbers like $400 for an OS then $300 for Office then $1500+ for a box resemble highway robbery.

Now would be a GREAT time for some alternatives. HERE is a means and method to an end. So the problem happens when we discuss the future of open source related to new hardware. Devices drivers can be revoked and portions of the given component must be closed (needs to be open to make Linux drivers) to prevent leakage of content.

Pretend that Zoron makes a GPU called a Zoron 2007 and decides he wants to get it out on the market. The driver needs to be revokable through Windont's update. Zoron will have to pay Microsoft for his card to be able to work. If Zoron is unable to pay the royalty then the drivers can be revoked.

Because of this and many other reasons my opinion is that the PC is a PERSONAL COMPUTER and Microsoft has ZERO RIGHTS to determine MY RIGHTS.

Excellent example of the power of Linux on less-than-current hardware.

Thanks for sharing...