Digital rights protection in vista

Status
Not open for further replies.
devman said:
By Congress, not by Vista.
Click to expand...

Quoted for Truth


duby229 said:
No it's not a choice. I NEED to use Vista. I have no choice. DRM and all. Which is BS.
Click to expand...


Incorrect

You don't get "DRM and all". You only get the "keys" to unlock your DRM protected media. No DRM is included in Vista.
 
calebb said:
Quoted for Truth





Incorrect

You don't get "DRM and all". You only get the "keys" to unlock your DRM protected media. No DRM is included in Vista.
Click to expand...

BS. You know it just as well as I do. It doesnt stop at just AACP either, and you know it.
 
duby229 said:
MS is one of "the great enablers"

Like I said. I make my stand where I can. If I was a lawyer, I'd take my stand to congress. But i'm not.
Click to expand...

I already made a reply to that, which I don't think anyone read.

The thread, and the debate about DRM started with respect to Vista.

What DRM in Vista allows, not restricts, you to view protected materials, thats all it does. Now that might not be what it does on the disc or in the players, but thats all it does in Vista, and thats what the thread was about. DRM in Vista in no way erode the end-users rights or restricts access, now one might make the argument that MS is an enabler, but if MS didn't support it they'd find some other way to do protect the content (ala Sony), personally I'd rather MS include the DRM capablities and let me choose. So far they got the including part, but not the choosing part, maybe they'll do better in the future, but that is the extent of DRM in Vista. We are not talking about the MPAA, or Device Keys, or Blu-ray, or HDDVD, or DVDs.
Click to expand...

So yes, Options Good, DRM neccissary evil, Not MSs fault, they have to pick and choose there lines in the sand too, and it was most likely a sound marketing decision to include the DRM functionally
 
duby229 said:
I use Linux daily. As my main desktop. But I am a network technician. I NEED to use windows. Sorry, no way around it.
Click to expand...

DRM is not going anywhere either and the content providers has given MS there requirements and MS accepted because if it doesn't it's gonna have a real hort life span. MS may be a big player but it doesn't scare the content providers at all and that is a fact.
 
I'd rather MS include the DRM capablities and let me choose
Click to expand...

This is one of the things you've said. But you see, your wrong... The dont let you choose. If you want Vista, you get DRM... That is my complaint.
 
duby229 said:
This is one of the things you've said. But you see, your wrong... The dont let you choose. If you want Vista, you get DRM... That is my complaint.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you got that but I didn't say that I would like a choice, I just said I rather have them intergrate it. rather then have seperate companies develop it as a add-on.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
While I'm not 100% sure about this, I'm going to assume you're here in the USA like I am, and if that's the case, then making those backups of your DVDs is against the law no matter how you slice it, dice it, cut it, crimp it, wash it, wax it, etc.

Having a copy is fine, it's making the copy that causes all the legal problems if you get caught.
Click to expand...
It is possible to make a copy of a DVD without violating the DMCA actually. You just need a legal method of decrypting the disk. There many ways of doing this. The most obvious being playing it in a dvd player and feeding that into a recorder.
 
duby229 said:
This is one of the things you've said. But you see, your wrong... The dont let you choose. If you want Vista, you get DRM... That is my complaint.
Click to expand...

Please at least read the next sentence after I said that!
 
marcusj3000 said:
I don't know where you got that but I didn't say that I would like a choice, I just said I rather have them intergrate it. rather then have seperate companies develop it as a add-on.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that... MS can feel free to provide DRM functions. I'm not against that. I'm just saying that it should be optional as to whether or not it gets installed.
 
duby229 said:
No it's not a choice. I NEED to use Vista. I have no choice. DRM and all. Which is BS.
Click to expand...



You dont "need" vista, you "choose" to use it. Dont like vista, use XP, use 98, use Linux, use OSX ? linspire....

You use it for work, not personal work, last time i checked you dont need to watch protected content at work.. ?

and if your troubleshooting vista machines should your copy not be the same as everyone elses?

What specifically is it you use in vista to do your job ?

lets say at work one day you get a training video that requires DRM, but you uninstalled it ? I am sure you would then go off on a rant how vista doesnt work and wont play DRM material.
 
marcusj3000 said:
DRM is not going anywhere either and the content providers has given MS there requirements and MS accepted because if it doesn't it's gonna have a real hort life span. MS may be a big player but it doesn't scare the content providers at all and that is a fact.
Click to expand...

Ummm, MS controls 90%+ of the personal computer market, and their Xbox 360 is becoming a major player in the "digital home" movement. They are VERY powerful, and if they just had some better innovation and the will to follow through, THEY would be the gatekeepers of the digital age instead of Apple.

The potential is *still there* however, as evidenced by the success of the Xbox division, and I bet that had MS wanted to, they could have left out DRM in Vista and only made it available if the user wanted to have it, potentially influencing the DRM standards in place today and the future.

I just don't understand all the people in this thread who are so supportive of the current DRM model that is in place. These standards promote proprietary technology that isn't interoperable, that only works on certain platforms, and isn't available for personal use in an unrestricted way.

I am so fucking thankful for the EU. At least their members have some balls and moral fortitude and are willing to go after the content providers to open up their systems and make them interoperable, and with fair usage conditions.
 
duby229 said:
I'm not saying that... MS can feel free to provide DRM functions. I'm not against that. I'm just saying that it should be optional as to whether or not it gets installed.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, and I said that. I said MS should include DRM, but dropped the ball on the optional part. It was good marketing to include DRM, but the customization wasn't there, and it would be nice to have it, unless MS patches it, it will be up to third parties. I don't think anyone would argue that having the option to disable or remove DRM from your Vista install is a bad thing.
 
MrGuvernment said:
You dont "need" vista, you "choose" to use it. Dont like vista, use XP, use 98, use Linux, use OSX ? linspire....
Click to expand...

I work in the IT industry, working with networks. The day beta1 was released Vista became a must. I think most people can understand this. I also work with Linux, and to a smaller degree OSX.... But Windows is easily the number one. And Vista will work it's way to the top within the next two years at the most. Like I said Vista is a must... Needed.
 
wow....how many times has this been argued guys? How can there possibly be another topic on this with more than 1 page? lol

Same shit different day. Its just really getting old.

And yes I agree...you don't NEED vista. What you NEED is food and water to survive. Maybe clothes to keep warm. Those are basic needs. Anything else is basically a WANT.
 
Actually with the key revocation system, it would be nice if the MPAA could license some keys for development on Linux or other open source players, since if it becomes compromised for pirating they can revoke the key and reissue one once the weakness is patched. That might actually be a step forward :D , but could also be a pipe dream
 
markt435 said:
wow....how many times has this been argued guys? How can there possibly be another topic on this with more than 1 page? lol

Same shit different day. Its just really getting old.

And yes I agree...you don't NEED vista. What you NEED is food and water to survive. Maybe clothes to keep warm. Those are basic needs. Anything else is basically a WANT.
Click to expand...

Which in my field wont happen without Vista... Trust me its needed. Cant do without it.
 
Actually you don't even need special keys for software players on linux, since it supports "Trusted Computing" just as Vista does.

I'm not sure how I forgot about that, but it ought to stir the pot a little.
 
Oh FFS! I've just read through two pages of idiocies, musrepresentations and irrelevencies!

DRM is about enabling playback.
DRM is about stopping people from copying content.
DRM is about controlling content use.

People, those are all part and parcel of the same thing. It's inclusion in the distribution media serves the purpose of making copying more difficult, and thus allows greater control to be exercised over usage and distribution. It's inclusion in the player (or OS) serves the purpose of enabling playback of the content.

DRM doesn't work so it is useless.

By whose bloody definition doesn't it work? The protection mechanisms don't need to be 100% effective to be useful, successful, practicable or meet any other such measure of achievement. The whole 'point' of it is to create a disincentive to casual piracy, and thus exercise a degree of control over copyright protection.

DRM simply puts a 'security fence' in place. The majority of people will, we hope, respect the fact that it is there, and be dissuaded from breaching it. Any contention that it will be a 100% effective countermeasure would be nonsensical. Do we build security fences around our houses and then subsequently stand down our police forces and dismantle our judicial systems? No, of course we don't. We know damn welll that a determined thief will breach that security, so we retain the ability to pursue other measures after the event as well. Same deal with DRM protection of copyright content. All we are really doing is placing an obstacle in the path of opportunistic misusage. Some determined people will inevitably find ways to go round, under or through it, but that's life. Unless we subsequently find that EVERYBODY who is confronted with that obstacle fails to find it to be an impediment then we have no right whatsoever to claim that it is a failure.

The reality of this situation is that the majority of people don't actually climb over that bloody security fence. Most of those who want to find it too much of an obstacle to be bothered with, and instead go seeking their illicit goods on the (p2p) black market, where other, more determined thieves are distributing it. As we see more and more successful DRM technologies implemented we can expect to see those distribution channels become the next major area of attention, without a doubt.



There are a small number of 'anti-DRM' protesters making appearances in threads such as this and making concerted effort to destroy any semblance of informed discussion. they completley ignore these simple principles, misrepresenting the situation to suit their own ends and labelling anybody wjho disagrees with them as a 'supporter' of DRM technologies. Hate to disillusion you, fellas, but the people who object to your idiocies don't necessarily like DRM technologies. A lot of the time we're simply objecting to the fact that you are wrong, and that you are bombarding decent discussions with ridiculous arguments. You seem to be under the impression that if you say it often enough it will become truth. That's not the case. You were misrepresenting to begin with, and you are still doing so now!


Even duby229, who seems to be arguing a simple and valid point, is really arguing for a right he currently doesn't enjoy under law. He wants an OS which doesn't have playback capability, but he wants that OS to be able to assist him to circumvent the protection technologies also. Sorry, mate. You don't currently enjoy the right to make copies of protected content. Go talk to your politicians and lawmakers about it. Don't trash OS threads about it!

Harsh comment? No, not at all. It's a damned shame that discussion like this is allowed to continue in the way that it does, because the loudest noise is being allowed to be made by people who are simply downright bloody wrong!



Edit:

In the time it has taken to type out this response the thread has blown out to another THREE pages of crud, rather than another two pages from what I read yesterday.
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
Ummm, MS controls 90%+ of the personal computer market, and their Xbox 360 is becoming a major player in the "digital home" movement. They are VERY powerful, and if they just had some better innovation and the will to follow through, THEY would be the gatekeepers of the digital age instead of Apple.

The potential is *still there* however, as evidenced by the success of the Xbox division, and I bet that had MS wanted to, they could have left out DRM in Vista and only made it available if the user wanted to have it, potentially influencing the DRM standards in place today and the future.

I just don't understand all the people in this thread who are so supportive of the current DRM model that is in place. These standards promote proprietary technology that isn't interoperable, that only works on certain platforms, and isn't available for personal use in an unrestricted way.

I am so fucking thankful for the EU. At least their members have some balls and moral fortitude and are willing to go after the content providers to open up their systems and make them interoperable, and with fair usage conditions.
Click to expand...

IF there is no content for all this great technology that microsoft has what good is it. If MS refused DRM then majority of the providers would not make content for all of microsofts gear. MS is not naive enough to think it can just dictate to the providers what it wants for it's gear. even with 90% of the market MS dosen't make the content others do so they dictate to MS how it will be.
 
Catweazle said:
Even duby229, who seems to be arguing a simple and valid point, is really arguing for a right he currently doesn't enjoy under law. He wants an OS which doesn't have playback capability, but he wants that OS to be able to assist him to circumvent the protection technologies also. Sorry, mate. You don't currently enjoy the rightt to make copies of protected content. Go talk to your politicians and lawmakers about it. Don't trash OS threads about it!
Click to expand...

I'm just simply saying that I have legal backups of all of my content that I own on my PVR, in an unprotected format. I dont want or need any form of DRM installed. It is designed to take my rights away from me, and is used to as such to manipulate the DMCA..

I'm not a pirate, and I dont appreciate being stereotyped as one. That's what DRM does.
 
duby229 said:
I'm just simply saying that I have legal backups of all of my content that I own on my PVR, in an unprotected format. I dont want or need any form of DRM installed. It is designed to take my rights away from me, and is used to as such to manipulate the DMCA..

I'm not a pirate, and I dont appreciate being stereotyped as one. That's what DRM does.
Click to expand...

At the risk of extending this further, what rights does DRM in Vista remove from you?

Bear in mind that I've already agreed with you, that you should have the option to remove it. It shouldn't have any bearing on your unprotected media.
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
I just don't understand all the people in this thread who are so supportive of the current DRM model that is in place. These standards promote proprietary technology that isn't interoperable, that only works on certain platforms, and isn't available for personal use in an unrestricted way.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse rational thought with "DRM support." That's downright insulting.....
 
I see the train of thought now. So some think that the DRM is the boogey man and when they install vista it will snatch the unprotected content and not give it back. LOL
 
I don't think anyone who is regularly contributing to this thread believes that.
 
I think some think that the DRM will manipulate their content into a how you say non user friendly state.
 
duby229 said:
I'm just simply saying that I have legal backups of all of my content that I own on my PVR, in an unprotected format. I dont want or need any form of DRM installed. It is designed to take my rights away from me, and is used to as such to manipulate the DMCA..

I'm not a pirate, and I dont appreciate being stereotyped as one. That's what DRM does.
Click to expand...

That's a load of nonsense, duby229!

I make backups of protected content that gets distributed on fragile media also. In doing so I technically 'break the law' and am happy to admit to doing so. But it does not, by any definition, make me a 'pirate' or label me as such. Our laws pay lip-service to the notion of 'fair usage'. They do here in Australia and an know damned well that they do in the US also.

Making backup copies for personal use and for the purposes of protecting the media we've purchased is a practice which is conceptually acknowledged as falling within 'fair usage' guidelines. Our laws simply don't currently protect our ability to perform such 'fair usage' procedures, and if we technically become lawbreakers in flaunting the laws which are in place we do not become labelled as pirates. Not by anybody in their right mind, anyway!

Arguing such a point is a pettiness.

brucedeluxe169 said:
.. isn't available for personal use in an unrestricted way.
Click to expand...
The law doesn't allow you unrestricted use of copyright content, so your argument is an invalid one.
 
devman said:
At the risk of extending this further, what rights does DRM in Vista remove from you?

Bear in mind that I've already agreed with you, that you should have the option to remove it. It shouldn't have any bearing on your unprotected media.
Click to expand...

You agree with me that DRM should be provided, but with the option to not install it. right?

So ignoring that, here is what I think.The Digital Millennium Copyright Act... The DMCA. I have read through a good portion of it. Most of it I can grasp, but parts of it are legal mumbo jumbo that sounds foreign to me. But I think I get the general gist of it. And I agree with it for the most part. I dont have any major issue with it per say. It certainly has a few sections that need refined, but it's largely acceptable.

Now lets take AACP as an example. This copy protection was designed with certain things in it that I wont get into much detail about. Some of you are familiar with it. No need to rehash old points. Anyhow the AACP was designed in such a way to leverage the DMCA to prevent making legal backups possible. Which is a direct contradiction to FairUse. I dont distribute my content, and I dont know anybody who does. Because of AACP, and the DMCA it makes it impossible for me to watch a movie on my PDA. Or to copy my movies to my PVR... I still do it anyhow, I dont care what anybody says. I havent done anything wrong. You can call it illegal all you want, but their is nothing wrong with it.

In this way DRM, specifically HDCP, and AACP, was designed to leverage the DMCA to make legal personal backups illegal and to compromise FairUse... With this combination, my FaiUse rights are now gone. It's not the DMCA's fault. It wasnt written in such a way to prevent fair use. Instead it is how the HDCP, and AACP was written to leverage the DMCA.. It is DRM taking my rights to make legal backups away from me.

As such I refuse to support it. I will continue to remove copy protection from the content that I buy, and play it back for my own personal pleasure in an unprotected format.

You can say that it was designed to prevent piracy... I call BS... It was instead designed to force users to buy a different copy for each format. As a matter of fact it has already started. Think about it... What is the point of a device code?

I dont want to have abnything to do with it, and is the reason I believe it should be optional on Vista.
 
I have a large personal collection of dvd's but I don't make any backups because I don't see the need. Once I have viewed it a few times I 'm probably not gonna watch it again. Once it becomes unplayable I through it away because it is probably a old movie by then. I have friends that makes backups and then they end up giving it to someboady else and thats definitly not right. I ask peolple why do you need a backup of a movie disc and mostly they can't tell me or say because the other might get scracthed but nine times out of ten then loan the backup out to a friend and forget about it which is basically piracy even if it wasn't the intention.
 
duby229 said:
You can say that it was designed to prevent piracy... I call BS... It was instead designed to force users to buy a different copy for each format. As a matter of fact it has already started. Think about it... What is the point of a device code?

I dont want to have abnything to do with it, and is the reason I believe it should be optional on Vista.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
What else results from the HD format-war. You have sony and co having exclusive lockin's with studio's such that certain films won't appear on HD-DVD. Likewise the same is occuring from the HD-DVD camp.

If someone goes out and buys a HD-DVD player (which out of the two IF I had to get out it would be this, it allows yr own personal backup at least) they have their right to buy films restricted and they have done NOTHING wrong completly nothing, and yet they are being punished

IF DRM was simply to protect IPR then sure you would of seen my stance on it a little less abrupt, but it isn't, its restrictiveness is being exploited by exec's at the expense of market freedom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top