This has already been amply dealt with if you'd just use the simple search
features in this newsgroup. With all repect to Peter Guttman who holds a Ph.D
in computer science, the article is deliberately misleading. Check out this
excellent responce by Paul Smith:
http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/2006/1...a_drm_nonsense
You may also read this previously posted reply if you please:
I read Peter Gutmann's article, which I must say I found rather distressing.
It's not the added cost, which will probably be quite minimal and will
certainly go down with time, that concerns me, but anything that affects
system performance is certainly an issue of considerable concern. Not that
I've noticed any system slow down with Vista, to the contrary my PC has been
performing much better with VIsta then it ever did with XP Pro. But how could
slowing down a new OS help Microsoft anyway?
I then reviewed the power point presentation prepared by ATI that Peter
refers to in his article.
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...2_WinHEC05.ppt
Not much of a presentation but Peter Gutmann seems to think it's of vital
importance as he quotes from it on several occasions.
Unfortunately there is nothing anti-microsoft or anti-vista about the
presentation despite the way Peter quotes from it so freely. In fact if
anything the presentation is pointing out the importance of incorporating
this DRM protection in developing PC technology.
With all respect to Peter Gutmann, who has a PhD in computer science and is
a respected journalist, in this case I feel he's actually misrepresenting ATI
in the way he quotes from their presentation. Allow me to quote the "session
goals" found on page three of the presentation:
"Explain why content protection is so important to the PC platform"
After reading that, what in the world would lead one to think that ATI is
opposed to incorporating DRM into their technology? Yet Peter quotes them as
though they were in full agreement with his arguments. That's misleading, and
the fact one has a PhD does not put them above being questioned.
Besides he makes sweeping statements and conclusions that in my point of
view betray his real intentions. It may be within his rights to conclude:
"The only reason I can imagine why Microsoft would put its programmers,
device vendors, third-party developers, and ultimately its customers, through
this much pain is because once this copy protection is entrenched, Microsoft
will completely own the distribution channel..."
but I beg to differ. I might ask why he so quickly concludes it's all a big
evil conspiracy. Could it not be possible there might be some other motive
for including this kind of technology in Windows Vista?
Peter concludes his arguments by pointing out that a PC is not a
"Premium-content media player." That may well be but does that mean it's
condemned to never be? Again notice what ATi says in the very power point
presentation Peter likes to quote:
"The Windows multimedia PC offers a flexible and convenient platform for
managing and viewing PREMIUM CONTENT in the home."
What we have here is a lack of vision.
The real question is, “DO YOU WANT TO PLAY PREMIUM-CONTENT ON YOUR PC?
Because if you do, as ATI point s out in their presentation, you need to win
the confidence of premium content producers and that is exactly what
Microsoft has tried to do.
"The studios, however, do not want to release their content on the PC
platform unless they are assured that it will not be illegally copied"
So perhaps the issue here isn't "world dominion" by Microsoft, but rather a
simple issue that Microsoft is working with others (you see they are not
"almighty") to ensure that in the future PC users will be able to view
premium content on their computers, and my guess is other OS systems will
have to move in the same direction unless they want their user to be reduced
to turning their PC's into an expensive typewriter.
I have no doubt that DRM has problems, and I have no doubt that people will
find ways around it but if Premium-content producers are content enough to
continue to allow their content to be made available to the average PC user,
then thank you Microsoft for trying to find a happy medium for us all.
I'm living in a city where I couldn't by an original game, program or OS for
all the money in the world. I can by Adobe Illustrator or a movie before it's
even come out in DVD, for just over a dollar, but who knows what other junk
ones getting with it, besides the fact half the time things don't work right
and half way through a game your whole computer comes to a grinding stop. In
order to get anything original I have to order it over the internet, let’s
hope that the hassles of trying to get around digital rights will become more
of a bother then it's worth, and people around the world start buying
legitimate products. Maybe then software companies and artists will start
lowering the cost of their products due to growing market.
"EU XP user" wrote:
> Some well respected sources like IDG are seriously questioning Vista's HD and premium
> content copy protection, claiming is disempowers legitimate users from watching
> their legally obtained HD content:
>
> http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index....67;fp;2;fpid;2
> Quote:
> "PC users around the globe may find driver software is stopped from working by Vista
> if it detects unauthorized content access. Peter Guttman, a security engineering
> researcher at New Zealand's university of Auckland, has written A Cost Analysis of
> Windows Vista Content Protection. He reckons Vista is trying to achieve the
> impossible by protecting access to premium content. Users will find their PCs'
> compromised by the persistent and continuous content access checks carried out by
> Vista."
>
> Full text:
>
> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...vista_cost.txt
> " A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection"
>
> Quote:
> "Executive Summary
>
> Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to
> provide content protection for so-called "premium content", typically HD data
> from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources. Providing this protection incurs
> considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical
> support overhead, and hardware and software cost. These issues affect not
> only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the
> protection measures extend to cover all hardware and software that will ever
> come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista (for
> example hardware in a Macintosh computer or on a Linux server). This document
> analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral
> damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry.
>
> Please read the full text at
> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...vista_cost.txt
> before posting a reply - thanks.
>
>
>
Linear Mode
