Digital rights protection in vista

[marcusj3000]

you forgot that to play such disc's you would require
1) suitable optical drive
2) suitable display card
both of which can/do come with software and drivers

so why did MS have to bundle the DRM for BR/HDDVD into the OS?

They had to bundle the ability ti play all forms of protected content. Man... you still ain't got it that you are a minority, no matter how much you want the check box to uninstall DRM you won't get it. Most of MS software is made for OEM's that sell pebuilt computers. Most consumers buy prebuilt systems from OEM's and they don't want the headache of if they can play protected content are not so it's added to everybox of OS software sold whether it be retail or oem. You live in the DRM age and will never get the choice to uninstall it or not. The oly choice you will get is if you can buy Windows,Linux, OSX, or some other OS for your box and that's the extent of your power to choice what you want intergated into the OS. So p[eople please give it a rest because if you don't want DRM then you'll have to make your own OS.

 

[duby229]

And that is the very problem we have. That is my complaint right their.

 

[marcusj3000]

Like I said some just don't get it there are things in this world that you don't get a choice with.. when your born, when you die, and whether or not you won't DRM.

 

[bbz_Ghost]

Like I said some just don't get it there are things in this world that you don't get a choice with.. when your born, when you die, and whether or not you won't DRM.

Guess that means one old saying needs an update:

"There are only three sure things in life: death, taxes, and DRM..."

Couldn't resist.

 

[duby229]

Like I said some just don't get it there are things in this world that you don't get a choice with.. when your born, when you die, and whether or not you won't DRM.

Wow... I'm shocked. I cant believe you just said that....

That has got to be the most asinine thing I have ever heard in my life.

 

[marcusj3000]

The mases want to be able to just play protected content so DRM has to be added. The I don't want DRM in my OS or I want the choice to uninstall it makes up a very small fraction of the computer world. And if you think the content providers would just let DRM not be installed think again. They would let the pc world rot and focus on the home entertainment sector because believe it or not most of their sales come from the home entertainment market.

 

[devman]

Basically summarizing this post:

Duby, et al position:
We should be allowed to pick and choose what we want with our install, that includes DRM. (not a direct quote)

I agree duby (and hopefully everyone else should), customization and options are good things, while MS didn't bother to include it for all features, we can only hope some 3rd party will be smart enough to break it all down. Just for clairification, removal of DRM features from Vista would not be illegal by any legal definition on the books today (including DMCA), unless your talking about Vista own self protection against piracy.

For those soapboxing about DRM should have never been included in MS, your arguing an irrelevance, get over it.

Then there some other argument about device keys and Bluray and HDDVDs, its off topic, and beyond the scope of what we can control anyway.

Refreshing my earlier analogy, DRM in Vista is simply a key to a padlock, it is not the padlock it self, nor does it create padlocks, it just opens them, thats it.

 

[MrGuvernment]

You got it exactly right. If MS wants to provide DRM functions, so be it... But I feel they should also provide the means to simply not install it. This goes beyond DRM in my opinion to other code on the system, such as WMP, and IE... But that is a topic for another thread...

You can uinstall media player and part of IE - ever check add/remove programs - add/remove windows components in XP [EDIT] Forgot they removed it from VIsta


IE is the core of explore shell in windows so it would be hard to remove.

P.S - Dont like DRM, complain to the companies using it, not MS.

 

[devman]

You can uinstall media player and part of IE - ever check add/remove programs - add/remove windows components in XP and Vista... ?


IE is the core of explore shell in windows so it would be hard to remove.

You got that reversed, Windows Explorer is the core of IE. In Vista the two are complete separated, IE is a standalone program.

 

[MrGuvernment]

You got that reversed, Windows Explorer is the core of IE. In Vista the two are complete separated, IE is a standalone program.

Sweet, thanks for the clarification, wasnt ware they managed to seperate it.

For those who dont want IE installed while installing windows, once in windows, how does one plan to connect to the internet to browse for a new browser?

Most joe blows want to install an OS and be done, not go around downloading basic programs, there choice is there for them if they want to use something else, or they can g out of the box.

So let give Apple shit as well then, i dont want safari in my install of OSX.... (if there was an option to remove it during an install, i must have missed it)

 

[duby229]

Ah and there it is...

I like the idea of a central repository. A package manager.. It removes these ridiculous dependencies.

 

[marcusj3000]

You want the right to pick and choose but you fell to realize is that it's not your product therefore they have the right to tell you what you can pick and choose in there OS. The right to pick and choose is if you are going to buy it or not, but since you didn't develop the OS your right to tell them what you want to pick and choose is null and void. As a consumer you have the right to choose what you want to buy but don't have the right to tell them how you want the product or how it is to function. Do you get it now? Your power of choice is limited when you don't develop the product yourself because it's not your money that's use to do it, it's theirs. SO the arguement on they should give me the option is null and void because they don't have to. You got your option when you choose to purchase a OS that is right for you. And that is the definition on your picking and choosing options not just for an OS but all consumer goods in general.

 

[devman]

You want the right to pick and choose but you fell to realize is that it's not your product therefore they have the right to tell you what you can pick and choose in there OS. The right to pick and choose is if you are going to buy it or not, but since you didn't develop the OS your right to tell them what you want to pick and choose is null and void. As a consumer you have the right to choose what you want to buy but don't have the right to tell them how you want the product or how it is to function. Do you get it now? Your power of choice is limited when you don't develop the product yourself because it's not your money that's use to do it, it's theirs. SO the arguement on they should give me the option is null and void because they don't have to. You got your option when you choose to purchase a OS that is right for you. And that is the definition on your picking and choosing options not just for an OS but all consumer goods in general.

Now ask yourself, is having options a bad thing? MS might not unnecessarily provide them, but imagine if you couldn't install programs, because MS didn't give you the option to? Far fetched yes. Options, are good things, and OS's by nature are somewhat customizable, even if there isn't a checkbox that says so. Like I said this might be a job for 3rd parties.

 

[bbz_Ghost]

Uhmmm... you can't uninstall WMP or IE (the browser, not the IE core) from Add/Remove programs in any version of Windows. That's another myth. You can, however, remove those two items using nLite/vLite if you're absolutely dying to do it AND those applications remove it PRE-INSTALL by yanking the actual code from the installer files - it's not done post-install because that would really screw things up.

Typically doing such things comes back to bite the user in the ass at some point, but whatevarrr.

 

[marcusj3000]

Now ask yourself, is having options a bad thing? MS might not unnecessarily provide them, but imagine if you couldn't install programs, because MS didn't give you the option to? Far fetched yes. Options, are good things, and OS's by nature are somewhat customizable, even if there isn't a checkbox that says so. Like I said this might be a job for 3rd parties.

Business 101 A product is designed with set specifications not for an individual but for a group of indviduals of a set preference which is called a consumer group. The manufatcurer sets the specifications. If they choose to not make it so that a individual can change the specifications tough luck. If the individual dosen't like the specifications they can not buy the product, choose among other competitors products, or make there own product to there specifications. What consumers fail to realize is that a manufacturer isn't obligated to give you a choice, all they can give you is what they think you want. Your choice begins when you enter the store and leave the store that's it. You can quell on if having a choice is a bad thing or good thing all you want but a manufacturer isn't obligated to give it to you.

 

[duby229]

You want the right to pick and choose but you fell to realize is that it's not your product therefore they have the right to tell you what you can pick and choose in there OS. The right to pick and choose is if you are going to buy it or not, but since you didn't develop the OS your right to tell them what you want to pick and choose is null and void. As a consumer you have the right to choose what you want to buy but don't have the right to tell them how you want the product or how it is to function. Do you get it now? Your power of choice is limited when you don't develop the product yourself because it's not your money that's use to do it, it's theirs. SO the arguement on they should give me the option is null and void because they don't have to. You got your option when you choose to purchase a OS that is right for you. And that is the definition on your picking and choosing options not just for an OS but all consumer goods in general.

Do you hear what your saying? "bend overand take it, becouse you have no choice"

Listen to your self.. Its ridiculous I dont expect MS to ever do it. I know they wont do it. I just wish they would. If nlite can do it, then MS can do it better. I hope that one day vlite will make it possible to remove DRM. It may never, but I hope it does someday.

 

[marcusj3000]

Do you hear what your saying? "bend overand take it, becouse you have no choice"

Listen to your self.. Its ridiculous I dont expect MS to ever do it. I know they wont do it. I just wish they would. If nlite can do it, then MS can do it better. I hope that one day vlite will make it possible to remove DRM. It may never, but I hope it does someday.

You are one of those people that whine and moan about what other people have done that you don't like but never shows the courage to try and create it themself. Gain some knowledge on why DRM was created and what lead up to it's creation then you might understand "cause and effect." Until then you will whine and cry while the world passes you by and moves on to important issues.

 

[eeyrjmr]

ok lets approach this in a more fundamental way

What is the purpose of DRM?


I have an extreamly bad feeling what your reply to this will be but I am hopeful you are not that nieve

 

[calebb]

ok lets approach this in a more fundamental way

What is the purpose of DRM?


I have an extreamly bad feeling what your reply to this will be but I am hopeful you are not that nieve

Totally irrelevant. That questions would be better suited for an anti-drm thread.

This thread is NOT about DRM. It's about Vista (permanently) being able to play DRM protected content.

 

[eeyrjmr]

Totally irrelevant. That questions would be better suited for an anti-drm thread.

This thread is NOT about DRM. It's about Vista (permanently) being able to play DRM protected content.

But to determine if its (permanent) inclusion into the OS actually adds value and productivity to it, the actual usefulness and the purpose of DRM needs to be stated

because if there is no purpose to DRM, then why have something that is worthless in the OS that cannot be removed and more to the point IF it is worthless why pay for it?

 

[marcusj3000]

But to determine if its (permanent) inclusion into the OS actually adds value and productivity to it, the actual usefulness and the purpose of DRM needs to be stated

because if there is no purpose to DRM, then why have something that is worthless in the OS that cannot be removed and more to the point IF it is worthless why pay for it?

The purpose of DRM has been said over and over but some here seem to not be able to grasp it and I feel that the Mod's should start locking and deleting threads like this because they serve no point when people just can't grasp the simple purpose of DRM. This horse has been beaten, shot, set on fire, gased, given the lethal injection and still we see threads started like this when all the question's was answered ages ago. I setting this horse on fire once again and hope the Mods just close this and all future threads down.

 

[bbz_Ghost]

DRM = Digital Rights Management = Granting you the content playback rights you're entitled to that you paid for (aka licensed) while retaining copyright and legal ownership of the content for the copyright and content owner, as well as providing a method for the prevention of not only casual copying but pirating of the content on a mass scale for either "fun" or possible commercial revenue pathways.

It's not there to stop you from playing the content, it's there to prevent you from ripping them off and making copies or heaven forbid trying to sell the copies you make.

The standard disclaimer you'll most likely find on nearly any DVD packaging worldwide will say something either similar to this or verbatim (my "notes" are not in italics in the following text and are bolded for em-faaaaaaaa-sis):

"This product (including its soundtrack) is authorized (aka licensed) for sale in the U.S.A. and Canada only. (insert country or countries here if necessary) The product is authorized (aka licensed) for private use only. All other rights reserved (that's the sticking point there) Unless expressly authorized (aka licensed) in writing by the copyright owner, any copying, exhibition, export, distribution, or other use of this product or any part of it is strictly forbidden."

Yeah, that'll stop people in their tracks... NOT.

I don't have a Blu-Ray movie here with me or an HD-DVD either, but I'm willing to bet that they each have either a very similar disclaimer on them or something pretty much exactly the same word for word.

 

[devman]

ok lets approach this in a more fundamental way

What is the purpose of DRM?


I have an extreamly bad feeling what your reply to this will be but I am hopeful you are not that nieve

This has no bearing on the current thread, if you like start a new one, this is about DRM in Vista, stop arguing an irrelevant point, DRM is in Vista, and its here to stay.

 

[bbz_Ghost]

This has no bearing on the current thread, if you like start a new one, this is about DRM in Vista, stop arguing an irrelevant point, DRM is in Vista, and its here to stay.

As for it not being a relevant question, that's just insanity. You have to have some understanding of what the hell you're babbling on about before you can have a discussion about it in the first place. So now you have one possible definition of what DRM is.

Now you and the rest of us can discuss DRM with respect to Vista along those lines...

 

[marcusj3000]

This has no bearing on the current thread, if you like start a new one, this is about DRM in Vista, stop arguing an irrelevant point, DRM is in Vista, and its here to stay.

Thak you. It has a purpose and it's not exiting any OS anytime soon. If you don't like it create you own tailor made OS without DRM. Otherwise you have your choice to buy or not to buy.

 

[duby229]

This has no bearing on the current thread, if you like start a new one, this is about DRM in Vista, stop arguing an irrelevant point, DRM is in Vista, and its here to stay.

And that is the point of this thread... Why?

Why is it here to stay? Becouse you want it? Becouse the MPAA wants it? why?

It all boils down to what DRM actually is. Despite you feelings on it, other people have a differeing opinion. There is nothing wrong with your opinion, or his. But we should ALL have the "right" to use what we want.

So is it Rights management, or Restrictions management? I dont see any rights being enabled by this technology, as a matter of fact this technology in conjunction with the DMCA takes my rights away.. Is it Rights or Restrictions?

 

[jimmyb]

DRM = Digital Rights Management = Granting you the content playback rights you're entitled to that you paid for (aka licensed) while retaining copyright and legal ownership of the content for the copyright and content owner, as well as providing a method for the prevention of not only casual copying but pirating of the content on a mass scale for either "fun" or possible commercial revenue pathways.
[...]
"This product (including its soundtrack) is authorized (aka licensed) for sale in the U.S.A. and Canada only. (insert country or countries here if necessary) The product is authorized (aka licensed) for private use only. All other rights reserved (that's the sticking point there) Unless expressly authorized (aka licensed) in writing by the copyright owner, any copying, exhibition, export, distribution, or other use of this product or any part of it is strictly forbidden."

When you buy a DVD you are actually buying a copy of the copyrighted work. You are not buying a license to use it. Software is licensed. Books, DVDs, CDs, etc. are purchased. I am not legally bound to follow instructions that come with a purchased product. I am legally prevented from making copies (circumstantially), but any extra rules that the manufacturer tosses on to the packaging, or whatever are not enforceable.

Anyway, this has little to do with Vista. So...

 

[marcusj3000]

As for it not being a relevant question, that's just insanity. You have to have some understanding of what the hell you're babbling on about before you can have a discussion about it in the first place. So now you have one possible definition of what DRM is.

Now you and the rest of us can discuss DRM with respect to Vista along those lines...

The definition of DRM has been givien over and over but poeple still keep asking why it is in the OS and why I don't have the choice to remove it. And for the question of what it is and it's relevance to the DRM in vista debate if you don't know what it is then you obviously haven't been keeping up with anything in the computer world.

 

[duby229]

Thak you. It has a purpose and it's not exiting any OS anytime soon. If you don't like it create you own tailor made OS without DRM. Otherwise you have your choice to buy or not to buy.

Thats not a choice. MS DOES have a monopoly./.. Most people including myself NEED to use MS products. What you claim as a choice doesnt exist.

A choice would be if I was able to CHOOSE to buy it, with or without DRM... That doesnt exist, there is no choice.

 

[calebb]

Why is it here to stay? Becouse you want it? Becouse the MPAA wants it? why?

CLOSE! It's because consumers DEMAND the ability to play HD content on their PC.

Scroll back to page 2,3,4 - we discussed the definition of DRM already. Also, refer to my Mac vs. PC analogy: Since we live in a free market society, if Microsoft didn't support DRM protected content in Vista, somebody else would.

Your anger is misplaced. Redirect to the RIAA and MPAA.

 

[eeyrjmr]

DRM = Digital Rights Management = Granting you the content playback rights

something you can already do with DVD so no value added here

you're entitled to that you paid for (aka licensed) while retaining copyright and legal ownership of the content for the copyright and content owner, as well as providing a method for the prevention of not only casual copying but pirating of the content on a mass scale for either "fun" or possible commercial revenue pathways.

I knew if I waited (not that) long enough someone would say it
please please please I am begging you show me how "DRM" stop's piracy
seriously show me the evidence.

WHen DVD's first came out they were pirated straight away via the good old video-recorder infront of the TV, then the signal was intercepted from the GFX to the display before CSS was cracked to speed up the copying

Which brings me onto my next point, what percentage of ALL DRM that have been deployed have NOT been crack,circunvented? come how many?
Shite even BR/HDDVD was cracked extreamly quickly once it was released

which then brings us full circle to the orignal question the inclusion of DRM-support within Vista. Since DRM is broken and the DRM that vista is supporting has been circumvented what exactly does its inclusion provide as a benefit to the end-user?

NOTHING! it is dead-code, pointless code, and yet it must be included in the OS install even tho there is no use of it

It's not there to stop you from playing the content, it's there to prevent you from ripping them off and making copies or heaven forbid trying to sell the copies you make.

and that is where the root of the problem lies. Yes companies have a right to protect their IPR, but the personification of this in the form of DRM is wrong and is broken and thus there is something technically broken in the core of Vista, an OS who's selling point (bar the "The Wow starts here") is its security, now that strikes me full of confidence the MS can secure me from the big bad internet

So what does DRM bring to Vista? the ability to play DRM-protected media that you can already play without the DRM-key's that are part of Vista

Gosh that is worth... $0, but its included has added to the cost of the OS
Which finally brings us back to the point that a few of us keep raising as to the fact that the DRM in vista should be removable

 

[duby229]

CLOSE! It's because consumers DEMAND the ability to play HD content on their PC.

Scroll back to page 2,3,4 - we discussed the definition of DRM already. Also, refer to my Mac vs. PC analogy: Since we live in a free market society, if Microsoft didn't support DRM protected content in Vista, somebody else would.

Your anger is misplaced. Redirect to the RIAA and MPAA.

Irrelevant... You can still play unprotected content. Ask a consumer what DRM is and they are going to scratch their head and say "I dont know"

So who decided we need DRM? You? MS? the MPAA? Why?

What does DRM do for me?

 

[jimmyb]

Since we live in a free market society, if Microsoft didn't support DRM protected content in Vista, somebody else would.

Or if MS didn't support it, it wouldn't exist in the first place. Leveraging a monopoly to achieve something like this wouldn't be unheard of. It's impossible to say really...

 

[marcusj3000]

Thats not a choice. MS DOES have a monopoly./.. Most people including myself NEED to use MS products. What you claim as a choice doesnt exist.

A choice would be if I was able to CHOOSE to buy it, with or without DRM... That doesnt exist, there is no choice.

You know why they became a monopoly because nobody else came to the table with a product equally the same. Microsoft isn't a monopoly by choice but one by consumer choice. But since nobody else wanted to challenge them, they became one of the sole players in the OS market. That is the reason why you don't have a choice anyone could have develop an OS the same time as microsoft but since no one did so the consumers created a monopoly by the choice of only buying from one company it's not MS fault that no one else had an idea. Ceratin companies in certain industry becaome monopolies not by choice but by market conditions.

 

[devman]

And that is the point of this thread... Why?

Why is it here to stay? Becouse you want it? Becouse the MPAA wants it? why?

It all boils down to what DRM actually is. Despite you feelings on it, other people have a differeing opinion. There is nothing wrong with your opinion, or his. But we should ALL have the "right" to use what we want.

So is it Rights management, or Restrictions management? I dont see any rights being enabled by this technology, as a matter of fact this technology in conjunction with the DMCA takes my rights away.. Is it Rights or Restrictions?

Except VISTA isn't what is taking your rights or restricting you at all, that was my point, this isn't about DRM as a whole this is about Vista and ALLOWING YOU TO PLAY DRM PROTECTED MATERIALS. Vista does not restrict it in anyway, it doesn't disable anything, it doesn't reduce your rights, It just unlocks material for you to view that was locked by something that wasn't Vista (the MPAA). Once again, yes I believe if you don't' care about this you should be able to remove it from your OS (directed at duby), I AGREE, however that is not what the other people in this thread are soapboxing about.

The DMCA is a whole other can of worms, if you don't like it (and no I don't like it either), write your congressmen.

 

[jimmyb]

Just so I'm not misinterpreted, I agree with that.

I do think MS could have put up a good fight though.

 

[marcusj3000]

something you can already do with DVD so no value added here


I knew if I waited (not that) long enough someone would say it
please please please I am begging you show me how "DRM" stop's piracy
seriously show me the evidence.

WHen DVD's first came out they were pirated straight away via the good old video-recorder infront of the TV, then the signal was intercepted from the GFX to the display before CSS was cracked to speed up the copying

Which brings me onto my next point, what percentage of ALL DRM that have been deployed have NOT been crack,circunvented? come how many?
Shite even BR/HDDVD was cracked extreamly quickly once it was released

which then brings us full circle to the orignal question the inclusion of DRM-support within Vista. Since DRM is broken and the DRM that vista is supporting has been circumvented what exactly does its inclusion provide as a benefit to the end-user?

NOTHING! it is dead-code, pointless code, and yet it must be included in the OS install even tho there is no use of it


and that is where the root of the problem lies. Yes companies have a right to protect their IPR, but the personification of this in the form of DRM is wrong and is broken and thus there is something technically broken in the core of Vista, an OS who's selling point (bar the "The Wow starts here") is its security, now that strikes me full of confidence the MS can secure me from the big bad internet

So what does DRM bring to Vista? the ability to play DRM-protected media that you can already play without the DRM-key's that are part of Vista

Gosh that is worth... $0, but its included has added to the cost of the OS
Which finally brings us back to the point that a few of us keep raising as to the fact that the DRM in vista should be removable

DRM was created to combat piracy. If the capabilty to burn programs on a disc was never released to the consumer do you think DRM would of ever been made? Now answer that question.

 

[eeyrjmr]

CLOSE! It's because consumers DEMAND the ability to play HD content on their PC.

Scroll back to page 2,3,4 - we discussed the definition of DRM already. Also, refer to my Mac vs. PC analogy: Since we live in a free market society, if Microsoft didn't support DRM protected content in Vista, somebody else would.

Your anger is misplaced. Redirect to the RIAA and MPAA.

What consumers?
BlueRay and HDDVD has only really just been released
only now are HDMI-Enabled Graphics Cards being shipped
HD isn't even over 33% of the world
the back-catalogue is a joke

it was stated somewhere that thus voicing concerns abt DRM in Vista are a minority, that may be true only because the masses are ignorant to what DRM is. in the last 3months I have had to bail a couple of people out with their music collection they amassed via iTunes, only to then replace their ipod with a creative player. They had no idea that they were pretty much locked to itunes or that now that there was no point in buying from itunes.
More and more people are becoming aware of the Digital-Restriction-Management that is being forced upon us all and MS is a chief culprit in this!.

So a few of us are the minority, what abt those that watch their film at their PC? (I honestly no noone that does that really! )
I would prefer to sit down in my nice comfy sofa with a beer with my nice big TV and my superb quality sound system then sit at my computer (even tho the screen size is only slightly smaller then that of the TV).
it is a minority in the Joe-Average world that actually uses their PC as a media centre, the rest of us use the living room with the setup we have. So a broken-by-design restrictive management system has been added to teh core of the OS for whom? not the masses that is for sure

 

[eeyrjmr]

DRM was created to combat piracy. If the capabilty to burn programs on a disc was never released to the consumer do you think DRM would of ever been made? Now answer that question.

no it wasn't
drm was created to control the licensing of media
a study has already shown that the existence of P2P is not responsible for the drop in CD sales.

 

[jimmyb]

DRM was created to combat piracy. If the capabilty to burn programs on a disc was never released to the consumer do you think DRM would of ever been made? Now answer that question.

Yes.

DRM gives the content producer more control over their content. What provider in their right mind would turn down a feature like that?