Last message on previous page:

I keep read about DRM regulation but can't find anything substantial. There's allot of discussions and talk of US regulations as I google DRM regulations. Please post a link of the regulation Vista must comply with.

Thank you

Regulations?...Regulations?....We don't need no stinking regulations!



Then you admit that it is not MS fault, but of those who wright these regulations (i.e. the government).

Interesting and what I expect from wannabes... I would like to read the laws and regulation that was posted in this forum about M$ had to follow; don't you?

Vista may have a huge negative impact on the PC community, please take the time to find out. This is not the every day argument to take lightly. Research and find out what really is going on.

I've been a M$ customer for two decades and a shareholder for one decade, I'm very disappointed with the direction M$ has taken. Please do not take my word for it, check out all the reviews and the links provided and go outside and do some leg work on your own then post some useful information.

I have stop listening after the statement:
"The hardware that the consumer purchased could be shut down." Which simply contradicts the official document issued by Microsoft called "MICROSOFT SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS" freely available on internet. And if I can not trust one of the very first statements in the beginning of the program, I do not see the reason to trust the rest...

What I think has happened here (just a hypothesis, do not quote me in that) is that initially MS did indeed have horrible license terms, but after seeing outcry in the community about it, it has changed the terms of license.

So I thank the guys like Peter Gutmann who wrote that article, and forced MS to change the policies, but now it lost it actuality, yet some people continue to go into the same direction just by inertia...

(I admit though that I know only about re-instalation policy change for sure, so I do not know if DRM policies were indeed adjusted as well)

Also, Peter admits himself (in the original article) that he looks at it as a security specialist, i.e. what in principle MS can do. He does not analyze for example what will happen if MS will actually try to do the thing, like completely shutting down purchased hardware, which contradicts its own license terms. That was not even his goal, as he admits himself.

I do agree though that there is extra cost associated with development of regulation complaint software, but blame the regulator (government, which was influenced through K street by media giants like Sony), not MS who has to comply to it.

I do, and unfortunately those are not very easy to find and understand. But do you blame that on MS as well?

Or I did, and my conclusion is that there is no data provided, say, by economist or accountants that shows "huge negative impact on PC community". And I am sorry, but I can't take the word of "security specialist" who treats the problem, as he admits himself, not as economist, not as lawyer, but as security specialist, I can not take his word as truth in the matter of "huge negative impact".

Plus, as I mentioned before, he often consider examples that simply contradicts MS license. I understand, that as sequrity specialist, he needs to do it, but the rest are just taking his words out of context, and do not even try to see the problem as a whole, not only from security specialist point of view.

Did I mention that he is a security specialist?

I have stop listening after the statement:
"The hardware that the consumer purchased could be shut down." Which simply contradicts the official document issued by Microsoft called "MICROSOFT SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS" freely available on internet. And if I can not trust one of the very first statements in the beginning of the program, I do not see the reason to trust the rest...

What I think has happened here (just a hypothesis, do not quote me in that) is that initially MS did indeed have horrible license terms, but after seeing outcry in the community about it, it has changed the terms of license.

So I thank the guys like Peter Gutmann who wrote that article, and forced MS to change the policies, but now it lost it actuality, yet some people continue to go into the same direction just by inertia...

(I admit though that I know only about re-instalation policy change for sure, so I do not know if DRM policies were indeed adjusted as well)

Also, Peter admits himself (in the original article) that he looks at it as a security specialist, i.e. what in principle MS can do. He does not analyze for example what will happen if MS will actually try to do the thing, like completely shutting down purchased hardware, which contradicts its own license terms. That was not even his goal, as he admits himself.

I do agree though that there is extra cost associated with development of regulation complaint software, but blame the regulator (government, which was influenced through K street by media giants like Sony), not MS who has to comply to it.

It is good that you took the first opportunity to not listen to the interview. Your mind is closed, which is your prerogative. I believe that any further discussion with you on this subject is fruitless. I guess we should wait and see what transpires.

It is not that. This interview is like one hour, and I do value my time so that I do not listen to the source that I mistrust for the whole hour. There is too much disinformation on internet, so I have to be sure that the source is not just bullshitting before I even bother to continue.

It is not that. This interview is like one hour, and I do value my time so that I do not listen to the source that I mistrust for the whole hour. There is too much disinformation on internet, so I have to be sure that the source is not just bullshitting before I even bother to continue.

funny you should mention disinformation.....

What interests me if you had listened to the interview, aside from the shutting down of hardware, since every vista system now has all of the copyright protection crap built into it, every single system is weighed down by the extra processes. Vista checks your hardware 30 times a second to make sure it's "valid". This may seem like a good idea in a copyright protection sense, but what about the people who don't use their pc as a tv? All of these people now have a system that wastes time and resources checking on things they don't "need" to be checked.

Whether you trust the information or not, if you refuse to listen to it you are just exorcising ignorance. How can you judge if the information is correct if you don't even read or listen to it? And why do you put so much faith in their licensing agreement? Just because there would be repercussions for the actions does not mean that they won't do it.

If your time is so important, why are you spending so much in these forums replying to a topic that you think is all propagandist bullshit?

well said

btw, I've heard that there's a guy in Europe who's already cracked Blue-Ray and HD-DVD. He managed to find the encryption key stored in his RAM memory when it plays.

I have no idea if this is true or not, but if it is hasn't there been a whole lot of time and resources wasted on this vista protection?

Why is it funny? Do you imply that I misinform people? Which part?

Oh! Come on! There are TONS of staff in any significant software like OS, office software, or even image editors that you never use. Do you think each peace of software should be individually tailored to the user. That would be so expansive! It is much cheaper to give the same software to everyone, and everyone would use only the part that they need.
If you are using more than 10% of MS office capabilities , I will be greatly impressed. Hell, even if you know how to use 50% capability of MS word along, I will be impressed.

So what if they never use computer as TV? Do they ever play protected material (Video or Audio)? Even if they do not, the situation is not very different than if they are not using DXDiag function of windows.
And according to the MS license, they should never experience anything bad from DRM, like shutting down the hardware, when they do not play DRM protected material.

Oh! You argue that hardware cost will be increased for them? But it was always so. Say, they do not play 3D games, but the chances are that their graphic card do support that, and the drivers installed on their computer, also support that. And there are many examples like that! (say, I never use SLI, but my card and the drivers support that, I do not use more than 1.3GB of memory, but my motherboard and windows supports that. I never use more than 2 hard-drives... you get the idea)

A) I read the original article.
B) I do judge information only after I listen. It is just you do not have listen the whole part to make you mind. If I find inconsistencies in the first part that I had listen, then I do not need to listen the second part to make conclusion that I can not trust this source (note I do not say that the second part is incorrect, I just say that I can not trust it, i.e. make conclusions based on it)

Consider the following example. You open a book about physics and on the first page you see the statement like "actually, the speed of sound in the air is faster than speed of light in the air". Would you care to read the rest of the book? Do you need to read the rest of the book to make conclusion that this source of information is not reliable?

So, no, it is not ignorance, it is quite the opposite. It is careful estimation of the information validity, and avoidance of unreliable sources.

Because license is a legal document. I am not saying that they absolutely never do actions inconsistent to their license. But if they do, then they will be sued. So, most probably they will not do those actions, because it is not profitable for them. And yes, M$ is all about profits (and so are the most other companies).

A) I do not think that it is a propagandist bullshit, I think it is your honest opinion. You may mistaken, but I may be mistaken as well.
B) Believe it or not, I do enjoy conversation with you, guys, even if you do not agree with me and I do not agree with you. And I can't have conversation with the recorded interview, so I do not see any reason to listen to it, because it has neither reliable information, nor something for me to enjoy.

I think you are taking the quote out of content. The question was "Will the playback quality be reduced on some video output types?" Notice the word "some"? So if you have a certified HDCP monitor and complaint drivers for you hardware, you should be able to see 1080 in full glory.

Also you omitted the first part of the quote "Image quality constraints are only active when required by the policy associated with the content being played". Meaning, again, that if your monitor and drivers are withing compliance of the protected media, then there will be no image quality constraints.

NO I did not take the quote out of context. I actually have done the research and read Peter Gutman's article and have not dismissed it out of hand.In addition, I have relied on experts like Leo LaPorte and Steve Gibson that interviewed Peter about the new DRM and many other experts that quite frankly are geniuses.

I upgraded my Computer to become Vista Compliant and cannot play protected Content with PowerDVD or WinDVD. I also tried several other software players that play HD content.

According to NVIDIA and PowerDVD my system is HD compliant and ready.

A friend of mine purchased an Xbox and brought it over to my house to see if I could play HD-DVD's. I can view all of the bonus content on the HD movie Serenity but I cannot play the movie as it blacks out the screen as soon as it starts to play.

I also downloaded some HD demo movies to my computer and they will not play at 1080p. They are reduced to a lower resolution but PowerDVD does not display the actual resolution that is displayed.

The movies plays just fine in WinXP thank you very much.

Now on to the issue that DRM only kicks in when premium content is present and will not effect non premium Content.

Here is a screen shot of one of the new programs that monitors content in the background called Media Foundation Protected Pipeline
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/3056/mfpmpam5.jpg

Since there is no documentation on this program and or its function, as of this time, it is a secret, we users have no idea what this program does or why it consumes valuable CPU cycles from the system.

We will have to wait for Peter to get some time to analyze just exactly what it is doing.

I urge you to actually read what Peter is saying about the DRM in Vista especially his latest update where he demonstrates that David Marsh lied with his answers in the 20 questions blog with his own written words in MS published DRM documentation.

I think it is demonstrative that a high level MS executive publically makes false statements about Vista DRM.

What does that say about MS and its true intentions with the DRM schemes being implemented.

None of this will prevent the commercial pirates from duplicating and selling illegal copies of "Premium Content". They have already cracked the protection and bypassed MS Content Protection.

That's not the issue. The issue is if they are DRM complaint. If the movie does not play that could mean one of two things
1) You still have some driver/hardware/software which is not DRM complaint.
2) MS does not follow it's license agreement.

In first case you have to upgrade that driver/hardware/software to DRM complaint variant. In second case you can sue MS (I am serious). But I suspect it is the first case.

I have read that article fully. But I also understand that it is very tilted view from the point of view of security specialist. He did not consider the problem fully, e.g. he did not consider what happens if Microsoft violates its own license. He says only what MS can do.

I have never like MS business practices. I am not MS funboy.

First of all, just a note, this is beyond the scope of this discussion. Whether there is any sense to make regulation about content protection or not is not exactly topic of this discussion. MS did not invent the regulations, it follows them.

But I can express my own opinion about this topic as well.

I think that there will be illegal copies anyway. I do not think that anyone at MS or any other company really think that it will stop hard core pirates. But there is a saying that "locks are for honest people only" or something like that. There is no problem for a criminal to open locked door, but yet you still lock your door in the house or in you car...

Same is here. Sure there will be pirated content, but right now it is just too easy to insert CD into computer and put all songs to internet for sharing. Thus you literally can find anything on internet.

I do expect that while the piracy will continue with DRM in place, it will not be as spread as without it.

Also, look at the bright side. It looks like it is "kind of OK" for people to share down-converted movies. I am really glad that industry goes in that direction. Premium content should be paid for. Non-premium, downgraded content, should be free some time after its production (and I am not talking years here)

Are you sure that you don't work for M$? By the way the word is stuff not staff. and I think you meant expensive not expansive.