| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Busting the FUD about Vista’s DRM | |
|
||
| Time: 10:34 EST/15:34 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Is it bad reporting, bad research, or something worse? That’s the question I asked myself when I read this NetworkWorld account of Peter Gutmann’s presentation at the Usenix Security Symposium last week. Gutmann is a researcher in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Auckland in New Zealand who specializes in encryption (on his home page, he describes himself as a Professional Paranoid). Gutmann generated a lot of heat last December with the publication of a paper that called Windows Vista’s Content Protection scheme “the longest suicide note in history.” He updated it in April, mostly to call his critics names, and he updated it yet again yesterday with a top-of-the-page slam at my ZDNet colleague George Ou, who took exception with some of Gutmann’s claims yesterday (see Claim that Vista DRM causes full CPU load and global warming debunked!). | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 356 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:14:40 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 8/14/2007 11:08:40 AM |
|
"Thank you, Ed Bott!"
There is a side story here that is perhaps more troubling than the porous stuff held out as fact by Peter Gutmann... leading personalities like Leo Laporte and Paul Thurrott shared this story on Twit.tv's Windows Weekly. Ok, fine... but in Leo's case he shared it in a way that supported Gutmann's findings - and Leo is plenty smart enough to do that ever so subtly. Fine and dandy - Leo is no friend of Microsoft and no one expects him to be and he's still funny and frankly, fun to listen to and he makes no bones about being a card-carrying Mac-Tard to the nth order of nerd magnitude. He is what he is and I like him - in that, Gawd I hate your sorry backside sort of way [all entirely harmless, of course]. Paul, relatively new to the show at the time, bugs the piss out of me - he's actually better at all things computer than his work reflects and the fact that he didn't refute what Gutmann was asserting with great energy is a reflection of what he didn't do [test] as much as much as it is of what he did do [defer in an unnecessary and cheesy effort to sustain street cred where none and I mean, zip, exists, or needs to...]. He's got to be the least hard working guy in technical showbiz and with the potential he has to really nail it, it disappoints that he doesn't. Paul, God gave you a lot man, do a lot with it! Back to my beef [or explaining it as it were...] WAAAYYYY TOOO MUCH FUD has been dropped on Windows Vista. It is nothing short of ridiculous. Those of us that have not just used it, but build on and for it, know what it is and what it can do - and it for certain can kick some mean Hi-Def content. Visually, Vista is nothing short of stunning and one may access HD/BD content as part of the larger PC experience for very little cash and with great ease. That is the truth and even year one techs can get it right each and every time. Oh, and as an HD/BD player, Vista PC's smoke and I mean SMOKE, any and all comers when it comes to usability. Waking a Vista box from the new sleep state and into a Hi-Def movie takes seconds, only - try that on any HD, or BD player?!?!? - they take what seems to be a freaking month to even start. On a more serious note.... personalities like Leo and Paul have a real responsibility to report "all" that surfaces... BUT... they also have a responsibility [especially to less seasoned users], to get it right. They don't in a lot of cases and that's fine, too - so long as they brand "Windows Weekly" honestly and its name reflects what appears to be Leo's position as an MS and Vista detractor - calling it "We don't actually use Windows Weekly and neither should you" or as AWBrian puts it, "Apple MAC, OS X, iPhone, Safari FTW Weekly" Oh, Paul, wipe your chin man, you're drooling on your iPhone again... |
| #2 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 8/14/2007 12:11:34 PM |
|
#1: Funny you should mention HD. I've been reading that Vista will downsample any HD playback unless its through the secure path. Supposedly, if you don't have a full HDMI or HDCP (or whatever it's called) rig end to end, your own HD home movies will also be downsampled and look terrible. Truth or FUD?
btw it is entertaining to watch the MS spinners complain about Vista being the target of FUD. The rest of us have had to put up with FUD from MS for a lonnnnnnnng time now. You know what they say about sauce for the goose... |
| #3 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 8/14/2007 12:26:35 PM |
|
#2, Complete and utter FUD - you read the article, right? and also Gutmann's material??
No, it will not down-sample content. Commerical content does not yet feature the tokens that would fire the protection mechanisms that would require an HDCP compliant vido card - now selling nearly universally for as little as 50 bucks and also standard on most HDTV's since November 2005. I guess not - just as I am sure you have not actually used Windows Vista long enough to test and enjoy HD content - locally produced or otherwise. Is it FUD to ask you to show me the sub-$700.00 *nix, or Mac box that can play HD? |
| #4 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 8/14/2007 12:46:57 PM |
|
#3: Complete and utter FUD - you read the article, right? and also Gutmann's material??
I didn't read today's rehash of yesterday's news, and I didn't read the Guttman article in its entirety. I have only a marginal interest in this. Is it FUD to ask you to show me the sub-$700.00 *nix, or Mac box that can play HD? Of course it's not FUD unless you've taken the Microsoft tack of redefining terms to suit your use. Besides, it's an irrelevant question. There could be zero or 10,000 of them and I wouldn't know. I could count on one hand the number of movies I've watched on DVD in the past 5 years. |
| #5 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at 8/14/2007 1:40:37 PM |
|
I have only a marginal interest in this.
Except for freely requoting it/accepting it more or less as fact, accurate or not. |
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 8/14/2007 2:53:40 PM |
|
#5: You say that like it's a negative. Do you hold me to a higher standard than yourself and the rest of humanity? You do not "know" most of what you know, as you are unable to prove it yourself. Therefore, most of your knowledge is generally accepted fact mixed in with opinion, hearsay, etc. Here we have a paper from a university professor (and not just some random blogger). I have no experience with HD/BD-DVD on Vista, so I have no practical way of verifying his claims and will take his opinion at face value. When facts (and not angry shouting from noted Windows supporters) emerge that dispute his position, I will re-evaluate my opinion. Right now we're at the stage where there is more shouting than facts. For me it's moot as I'll never be watching HD-DVD on a Vista PC.
|
| #7 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 8/14/2007 3:15:25 PM |
|
I am not getting in the debate because personally I boycott both HD-DVD and BluRay; the reason behind this is that both formats are DRMed in an unacceptable way.
Other than that I can confirm, based on the limited amount of testing I did when I was Beta testing Vista what what #3 stated: At the moment, and I would like to emphasize "at the moment" Movies Companies have not YET implemented the policies which would downgrade the quality of the shows. Said that I am ready to bet that if and when one of these two formats will become popular the protection mechanism will be implemented. Personally I do not like the idea to have a "Damocle' sword" hanging over my head so I just bought a new "Upsampling" DVD player and, honestly, the difference with a HD DVD or a BluRay is very slim. The next format I will embrace will be the one that allow me to store the movies I buy in my server and stream them in as many TV sets I have in my house. |
| #8 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 8/14/2007 3:39:41 PM |
|
#7: I wondered if this was the game. We've all seen it before... "Well, technically this feature/policy could be used for bad stuff against you, but trust us it would never, ever happen..." and the second you accept, the thing that will never, ever happen happens. I think it's called the thin end of the wedge. For a fine example of how this works, see the PATRIOT Act and warrantless wiretapping.
The next format I will embrace will be the one that allow me to store the movies I buy in my server and stream them in as many TV sets I have in my house. I wonder if that format will ever exist legally. Big media does NOT want to lose control even after the sale. I can't see the day when the dominant media is not DRMed up the ying-yang. |
| #9 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 8/14/2007 5:17:58 PM |
|
"Google contacted customers late last week to tell them that the video store was closing. The e-mail declared, "In an effort to improve all Google services, we will no longer offer the ability to buy or rent videos for download from Google Video, ending the DTO/DTR (download-to-own/rent) program. This change will be effective August 15, 2007."
The message also announced that Google Checkout would issue credits in an amount equal to what those customers had spent at the Google Video store. Why the quasi-refunds? The kicker: "After August 15, 2007, you will no longer be able to view your purchased or rented videos." See, after Google takes its video store down, its Internet-based DRM system will no longer function. This means that customers who have built video collections with Google Video offerings will find that their purchases no longer work. " http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070812-google-selleth-then-taketh-away-proving-the-need-for-drm-circumvention.html And people want Google to hold onto their data for them! |
| #10 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at 8/14/2007 5:51:21 PM |
| #6--that would be a fair point, except that this very article is refutation, right here for you to read... along with Ou's article (linked), which has plenty more than Gutmann's simple theory and conjecture... along with lketchum's detailed (very!) posts describing otherwise. So... after plenty of time to "re-evaluate," which do you choose to quote? Though refuted with hard evidence, you still choose the theory and speculation... that fits with your agenda. |
| #11 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 8/14/2007 7:00:44 PM |
|
#8, Okay, so it is all a form of entertainment for you. Cool. I get it and will play.
So you basically know squat, based upon squat, but hey, you're paid by someone to dribble any way - so may as well be opposite people that do build things - including compliant systems capable of supporting any form of HD content. No problem. Where I do have a problem is in the comparison with the Patriot Act and "warrantless wire-taps" - First, the "collection" is by law, and subject to laws, governing regulations and directives and very healthy oversight. Most importantly is the fact that neither the act, or actions under it are about "wire-taps" at all! You idiots [and this time I really do offer that as a description and maintain that it is accurate], continually use the name "wire tap" as though a physical serial, or parallel tap were placed on a telephonic device - it isn't - so pay attention, IDIOT, the collection DOES NOT involve taps of wired telephony and the freaking reason the act's structure provides for more flexibility is that unlike a hard line, the target's emitter and properties are not fully known BEFORE the bad guys make commo - so one has to direct collection differently. So kindly stop with the "wire tap" BS - the truth is it is quite easy to isolate desired targets from innocent communications and that is what the directives and oversight provide for. The DRM is about adhering to terms and protecting content - from thieves. Microsoft, Vista and many partners are about adhering to the rules and standards so people can enjoy HD content. You're about obfuscating the truth and hell bent on enslaving tax payers to fund your social agenda. What is it man, the AC out in Mom's basement this summer, or are you pissed that imagery on a *nix looks like ass? |
| #12 By 15406 (74.104.251.89) at 8/14/2007 7:33:51 PM |
|
#10: I have a prof on one side, and 3 guys (2 of whom are Microbots) saying otherwise so I'm still lacking required confirmation. I was talking to a colleague about this and he proposed a scenario where everyone was right. Gutmann's work was all admittedly theoretical and he even said that he didn't have Vista to try it on. The guys with Vista say it doesn't work that way in practice. My colleague thought that perhaps this DRM system is fully implemented in Vista, but not activated for whatever reason. So, theoretically, the down-sampling code could muck with your home HD, but currently doesn't and likely won't. But with one update, the switch can be flipped. I don't know if this is even close to reality, but it could explain everything neatly.
#11: You really get in a huff when anyone attacks your precious Republicans. Bush can always make anything he does legal by backdating a new law or by brushing it off with an absurd executive privilege declaration. |
| #13 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 8/14/2007 8:20:54 PM |
| #11, I get worked up when people attack the truth - especially about that which is truly noble - and beleive it or not, the people working in collection are true knights - they'd rather die [and do] than harm even the spirit of the law - much less a US Person [one needn't even be a citizen in order to be protected]. It isn't an issue of "party" - these are fundamental issues of right and wrong and the "property" that underwrites individual liberty. Respecting that right is a two sided coin - respect others and they will respect yours. You seem to want a world that provides that only the state has the right to own anything at all - and that results in bad things - like slaves, bad teeth, bad housing and cars made of pressed paper...oh and a whole lot of premature death. You want that? Head on outta here and for the nearest socialist state you can find - just don't count on many of us to follow... and do count on us racking as many rounds as it takes to continue to defend what we built [the best chance for individual liberty there is]. DRM, as much of a pain in the neck as it is, must exist to protect property. Vista simply is extended in ways to allow those of us that love HD movies and content to enjoy it on, or from a PC. |
| #14 By 135 (75.73.90.215) at 8/14/2007 8:52:08 PM |
|
You seem to want a world that provides that only the state has the right to own anything at all - and that results in bad things - like slaves, bad teeth, bad housing and cars made of pressed paper...oh and a whole lot of premature death.
Man, that sounds a lot like Alabama. DRM, as much of a pain in the neck as it is, must exist to protect property. Vista simply is extended in ways to allow those of us that love HD movies and content to enjoy it on, or from a PC. You miss one important part of Capitalism. I don't have to buy your crap. |
| #15 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 8/14/2007 9:00:47 PM |
|
#14, Funny... of perhaps 160 years ago - today, I don't think they'd let you past the gate at the head of our community, and we're not keen on handing out the code.
Oh no.... not missed at all and that is part of it... many products fail under our system, as you surely know - and good ones that succeed replace them. Under a socialist system, bad products succeed every time - there is nothing else to buy and people buy what exists [not that much does]. |
| #16 By 48398 (130.13.158.96) at 8/14/2007 9:49:22 PM |
|
Also, there's the broadcast flag in Media Center. It exists to limit the portability and life of DVR-MS files. Although it's there, broadcasters haven't yet used it. Just like HDCP.
I can only hope that everybody who crys foul about DRM starts purchasing DRM-Free music from iTunes and Amazon to send the message. Otherwise, we'll never see an end to this bullcorn. |
| #17 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 8/14/2007 10:20:38 PM |
|
Woohoo, it's the socialist scare tactic thread! Where are all the communist comments? Come on! Flame on! If only those damn socialists could have decent healthcare systems and cars... hmmm. Tell me lketchum, since you're obviously not a hypocrite in any sense of the word, how do you get your mail? It wouldn't be through that socialist postal service would it? What about the socialist police and fire services? Why is ok to have a socialist service that look after your safety (i.e. police and fire) but not your wellbeing (i.e. healthcare)?
"DRM, as much of a pain in the neck as it is, must exist to protect property." Bullshit! It never was required and it isn't required now unless you choose it to be. If you want to be shackled down with someone else telling you what you can and cannot do (hmm... what does that sound like boys and girls?) then that's fine, but back the hell off before you try and force your "utopia" on us! #7 "The next format I will embrace will be the one that allow me to store the movies I buy in my server and stream them in as many TV sets I have in my house." And there's the voice of a sane individual who is not willing to sacrifice his freedoms to make people like lketchum and the **AA take control. |
| #18 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 8/14/2007 11:46:22 PM |
|
#17, Sure, so long as they are really tiny and under the direct control [as in they can be fired] of really small local government, or as in the case of our state police and FBI, their charters a re very limited and they can only police very specific crimes - you know, like we have it here where there is not yet a socialist state. Where there is a national police and fire service there is the chance of abuse that cannot be controlled easily. Where such is kept small, the people closest to the service are in charge and they pay according to their needs and priorities. Do you see the difference? It is very real and very important. Healtcare - are you kidding? Chris, "I" fully fund 100% of my employees healthcare - I even pay the tax on the benefit for them. They pay zip - and out of cash, I pay any co-pays, or out of pocket expenses. That is one way I can compete with others who would try and hire my guys away. While imperfect, I do assess a competitive system provides the incentives to assure excellence. You think there are not private fee based hospitals in the EU, Canada, AU, NZ??? There sure are and you can bet that is where I would go.
If you don't like DRM downloads, then buy the CD and rip away. Same drill for ripping DVD's to a server - specialty servers do exist and a DVD takes 20 minutes to burn to a whole house system. Can't afford that, buy or rent the thing. You can also buy DRM free DL's but what happens when there is no money left at all and no one produces new material? Also, are we to take the locks off our doors [I remember when doors had none - criminals changed that for all of us]? Are we not to protect our land and property? Where does it stop? I disagree, content owners have a right to protect their property and they should do so. |
| #19 By 12071 (203.158.39.235) at 8/15/2007 4:10:25 AM |
|
#18 "Sure, so long as they are really tiny and under the direct control [as in they can be fired] of really small local government"
So in that case you're against the US Postal Service, which definitely does not fall into that category and is a very socialistic system indeed? "Healtcare - are you kidding?" I would never kid about healthcare - it's a very important topic. "I fully fund 100% of my employees healthcare" That's wonderful, good on you, I'm sure your employees are very grateful for it. But it's completely and utterly irrelevant to the current discussion. It does not change the state of affairs as they relate to healthcare in America. i.e. That it needs to be paid for - your employees will need to pay for it themselves once they leave your organization. And if anyone should challenge that notion, that "awful" word "socialism" is thrown around by people like you to stir up emotion even though you're more than happy with your current socialist postal, police and fire services! Funny that! Which is what led to me saying "Why is ok to have a socialist service that look after your safety (i.e. police and fire) but not your wellbeing (i.e. healthcare)?" which you didn't quite understand. So once again, if a socialistic practice is such a BAD thing, then why are people like you being hypocrites about it and accepting it in some cases but not others? Is a person's well being not important? Or is it only as important as the amount of money they are able to pay? "While imperfect, I do assess a competitive system provides the incentives to assure excellence" As oppose to a socialist system which doesn't assure excellence? right... "You think there are not private fee based hospitals in the EU, Canada, AU, NZ??? There sure are and you can bet that is where I would go." Of course there are! They all provide private health insurance for those that can afford it or wish to have it. But here's the bit you missed out which is quite deceptive of you... they provide that private health insurance ON TOP OF the universal health care system in place to allow EVERYONE to get treated. In much the same way that all those people get the mail delivered to them, and protected by the police and fire services - i.e. through taxes. So all of those countries you mentioned are leaps and bounds ahead of America as they provide everything America does as well as the universal health care system to allow everyone, rich or poor, to receive medical treatment when required, without you having to spend money to purchase it on behalf of all of your employees. "If you don't like DRM downloads, then .... rip away." I don't want to purchase something, then spend time ripping it to get the right to play the damn thing. And in many cases, the ripping itself is illegal as a key needs to be provided to be able to access said DRM material - whether or not "fair use" plays a part is a gray line. But as I said before... if your "utopia" is the enslavement of end users (i.e. the customers) via DRM then all the best to you. Just don't expect the rest of us to follow suit as we'd like to hang onto our freedoms. For someone preaching about freedoms and liberties with such patriotism, you sure are happy to throw those away very quickly with ridiculous arguments such as piracy! DRM has got very little to do with piracy and a lot more to do with control if you really took a good look at it. The only reason the word piracy is thrown around is, once again, to stir up emotion, because we all know that piracy is bad! |
| #20 By 12071 (203.158.39.235) at 8/15/2007 4:10:47 AM |
|
#18 "Are we not to protect our land and property?"
Is this supposed to be some stupid analogy on your part? Get the analogy right at least. DRM is like you selling me land and property whereby you continue to dictate to me what I can do with said land and property. Oh you can't knock down that house and build another sorry. Oh and don't try and see how the pipes are connected, that will come under reverse-engineering which is a no no! "I disagree, content owners have a right to protect their property and they should do so." And consumers have rights too - rights to do reasonable things with the items they have purchased. If I want to view the movie I just purchased on my non-HDCP compliant monitor then it is of no consequence to the content owner. I'm not willing to be a slave to their every beck and call. |
| #21 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 8/15/2007 8:35:06 AM |
|
Lloyd, I'm afraid Kubuki has defeated you on two levels: he has won the argument and quite possibly beat your record for longest single post!
Seriously, DRM is not concerned about the artist's creation. It's about corporate fat-cats continuing to pad their pockets on the backs of artists. |
| #22 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 8/15/2007 8:53:28 AM |
|
Under a socialist system, bad products succeed every time - there is nothing else to buy and people buy what exists [not that much does].
Also true of a statist economy, like you keep supporting. Anyway, the crack about the gated community was telling. Up here us yanks consider those un-American. |
| #23 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 8/15/2007 8:54:45 AM |
|
#20 I'm not willing to be a slave to their every beck and call.
But being against slavery is anti-business! What are you some kind of communist!? This post was edited by sodablue on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 at 08:55. |
| #24 By 37 (76.210.78.134) at 8/15/2007 9:23:46 AM |
| I would have to say that Lloyd actually won that debate hands down. DRM is also protecting the artists. |
| #25 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 8/15/2007 10:12:24 AM |
|
#18: 0wned
#24: Don't kid yourself. DRM doesn't protect anything. DRM has yet to stop any of the well-organized Chinese factory pirates and it can't stop granny from ripping her CD and DVDs. DRM is defective by design. Any DRM scheme will always be cracked. As for the artists, they're getting screwed more by the labels than from any losses due to copying. You should read some of the essays by Steve Vai, Joan Baez, Courtney Love and others. They'll be happy to tell you about how piracy doesn't affect them much compared to the reaming they get from the record companies. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 356 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:14:40 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
