DRM slows down Vista?

[LstBrunnenG]

Someone here has been continually claiming that DRM makes Vista slower. This is directed at him, but all are invited to participate.

Let's start with the sources you cited:

20 Questions about DRM on the Vista Blog
A Whitepaper on Vista's Content Protection
The Vista EULA
THG Article on Vista vs XP
EFF Article on Vista DRM
The "Cost of Vista" FUD article that's been bandied about
PolishLinux article

This thread is not about whether Vista will downgrade our output quality when playing protected content. I don't really care about that. If any content provider is dumb enough to require Vista (or our set-top players) to do that, they'll simply lose my business.

This thread's purpose is to, once and for all, dispell the notion that Vista's DRM is slowing down the experience of unsuspecting users. The burden of proof here is on those who insist Vista is slower, and that the reason for that is DRM. This is because there are a lot of people on this forum who are actually running Vista, and find it to be as fast as or faster than XP for everyday tasks.

Actually, the THG article quoted by Kunsmoke shows that unless what you're doing involves OpenGL, you can expect only about a 1% slowdown on things like video and audio encoding. It's only areas affected by OpenGL that Vista falls flat on its face, and this is squarely the fault of the driver manufacturers.

After you've somehow proven that Vista is significantly slower than XP, you'll have to prove one or both of the following:

1. Vista is slower because the DRM is active, regardless of whether you're playing protected content.
2. Vista is slower because the implementation of DRM is what's delaying NVidia and ATi in getting better drivers to us.

As to the sources you cited, Kunsmoke, I read all of them except the whitepaper. The whitepaper I skimmed and it looks like things I already knew, presented in nauseating detail.

Let's tackle them one by one:

1) 20 Questions on the Vista Blog

Everything here seems to tell me that the DRM can only consume resources when you're playing back protected content. Also, there's nothing about DRM slowing the driver development process

2) The whitepaper

Again, I only skimmed this, but there's nothing in there saying NV or ATi were slowed down by implementing this. If you want to prove me wrong, quote a specific passage from here.

3) The Vista EULA

I'm going to repeat myself:

Actually, I just did read it. Did we read the same thing? Let me link you to the license I read, just in case. In there is nothing that lets Microsoft revoke your license for no reason at all. It *does* say that if the software isn't properly licensed, it may stop working. This is copy protection, not "detonating of any boxes that use open source software." To be perfectly realistic, Microsoft alone could not possibly hope to provide the entire range of software that the end user could hope to use. Thus, restricting Microsoft operating systems from running non-Microsoft software, open source or otherwise, would only hurt Microsoft, since everyone and his brother would be running to switch to Linux just so they could run whatever sub-par clone of Quickbooks the open source community has seen fit to grace us with.

4)THG Article

What this shows me is that Vista performs almost as good as XP, except in situations where OpenGL is used. Then it falls flat on its face because of the immature drivers.

5) PolishLinux article

Nothing in here about the DRM slowing your computer to a crawl. They seem to infer a more far-reaching definition of revocation than Microsoft has officially stated. Also, you asked why cracking HD-DVD and the like would be illegal. It's in one of your own sources:

We know that we can break almost any DRM restriction using easily available open source software. But what about the legal part? Is it legal to do this at home? Well, this depends… Depends on where you live actually. For instance, if you have the misfortune of being located in the United States or France, you are prohibited by law to play your legally purchased music or films (sic!) that are secured by DRM if you don’t buy an approved operating system (like MS Windows or MacOS) with an approved media player (like PowerDVD or iTunes). In the US this has been enforced by the DMCA act. In France, a similar act called DADVSI.

6) The "Cost of Vista" article

Already read it weeks ago. It's FUD. Disproven by one of your other sources, the 20-questions one.

7) The EFF Article

It's main beef with Vista is that it will cripple your PC if you have something on it content providers don't like. Not true. If you have something on your PC content providers don't like, then the content providers won't let you play their content. It doesn't affect everything else on your computer.

Nothing here either about DRM slowing your computer to a crawl.

Your move. If you do find something you feel proves me wrong, please post not only the link but a quote of the relevant section.

 

[Archer75]

Yeah I think most people know that it's a MPAA thing and not a Vista thing. It's not something microsoft decided to do for the fun of it but a requirement of the DRM placed on the HD-DVD and Blue Ray discs. Basically all it requires is your source and your display support HDCP.
The requirement is the same as your set top player and your TV.

You will see the same thing in OSX as well when they finally release their blue ray drives.

The DRM is on the discs, like it or not. Operating systems have to build in support for that in order to play it with a downgraded video signal.

Also, on your set top players if you don't use HDMI or DVI but use component instead it will still downgrade your video signal. Even if you have HDCP support on your set top and display.

 

[duby229]

You guys still havent looked into what HDCP is have you? HDCP is a method, among others, to prevent you from playing NON protected contect....

Which means they are FORCING DRM down our throats...

 

[bbz_Ghost]

/me predicts this thread won't last 24 hours because it's basically a personal attack at <that guy> for his self-stated expression of opinions that will never end, or so he says...

We all understand the DRM issues, but at the moment they're not relevant to most anything since BluRay/HD-DVD protected content really isn't anymore, or should I link to that recent news bit too?

The personally directed stuff won't fly here, you should know this...

 

[Archer75]

You guys still havent looked into what HDCP is have you? HDCP is a method, among others, to prevent you from playing NON protected contect....

Which means they are FORCING DRM down our throats...

It does not prevent you from playing non protected content. I have done so many times. One thing that it does do is encrypt that non protected content as it moves from souce to display.

It's a method of insuring there is nothing between the source and display to capture the signal.

 

[odoe]

Is it necessary to call a fellow forumer out?
Nothing wrong with the thread really, but calling others out like you are looking to battle them with your pikachu is frowned upon. Without stretching out my moderator abilities, may I suggest you retract your pokeball and remove the posters name from your original post please. This is the kind of thing that should have stayed in PM form.

As far as the rest of the thread goes, please continue. It's an interesting discussion, but if you're going to contribute, please keep it civil.

 

[LstBrunnenG]

You guys still havent looked into what HDCP is have you? HDCP is a method, among others, to prevent you from playing NON protected contect....

Vista supports HDCP. Fact.

I can play un-encrypted MP3s, AVIs, and other forms of media on my Vista PC. Fact.

If HDCP truly prevented me from playing NON protected content, one of those would have to be false.

 

[LstBrunnenG]

Is it necessary to call a fellow forumer out?
Nothing wrong with the thread really, but calling others out like you are looking to battle them with your pikachu is frowned upon. Without stretching out my moderator abilities, may I suggest you retract your pokeball and remove the posters name from your original post please. This is the kind of thing that should have stayed in PM form.

As far as the rest of the thread goes, please continue. It's an interesting discussion, but if you're going to contribute, please keep it civil.

You're right. My post probably sounded more aggressive than I wanted it to be.

However, since the post was basically a response to his claims in the other thread, it was much easier to direct my post at him. I didn't want to continue the discussion there because it was off-topic there.

I hope the change I made meets your approval.

 

[odoe]

It's cool. I just want to make sure things don't get blown out of proportion.
The DRM support in Vista has been something people have been worried about since it was being developed. I think there is a lot of misconceptions about it out there as well as some founded concerns.

 

[duby229]

It does not prevent you from playing non protected content. I have done so many times. One thing that it does do is encrypt that non protected content as it moves from souce to display.

It's a method of insuring there is nothing between the source and display to capture the signal.

Exactly....

It's a method to make sure I cant use my non protected content. You can twist the meaning around all you want, but you just explained in plain english.

It actually does alot more then that and in a slightly different way, but at least you got the drift.

 

[duby229]

Vista supports HDCP. Fact.

I can play un-encrypted MP3s, AVIs, and other forms of media on my Vista PC. Fact.

If HDCP truly prevented me from playing NON protected content, one of those would have to be false.

You assume it is mutually exclusive, and that is not the case at all... That is not the point of HDCP... You really should read up on it.

 

[ChronoReverse]

More people should see this.

The amount of false information and quite frankly, outright lies out there is unbelievable.

I can understand (and do my own share) about complaining about real problems. Spreading information that's not true is a detriment to that. Real issues get lost in the noise.

 

[LstBrunnenG]

You assume it is mutually exclusive, and that is not the case at all... That is not the point of HDCP... You really should read up on it.

What are you trying to say? Say it in other words, because your current choice makes no sense to me.

Vista supports HDCP and lets me play my MP3s and AVIs. To me this would contradict what you are trying to say. HDCP isn't stopping me from playing my non protected content.

 

[Martyr]

You guys still havent looked into what HDCP is have you? HDCP is a method, among others, to prevent you from playing NON protected contect....

Which means they are FORCING DRM down our throats...

No, its a method to prevent your from de-protecting the protected content. However, I for one do not understand the measures they have taken, they want a protected data stream (which is impossible with a totally isolated data path) to stop people from ripping video from the video cables and encoding it into a different video. What they failed to realize (no idea how the fuck they didnt) is people will just take the damn data right off the disk and decrypt it, without the playing portion at all. As has been done with dvd's for years.

Is there another piracy segment they are attacking? Is a market such as the chinese piracy market done differently, where they rip the movie from the video output? That would be the only viable reason for an encrypted data stream in my opinion. Hell they can give me the billions they spent on hdcp to listen to if they want to, I would have no problem with that.

 

[Archer75]

Exactly....

It's a method to make sure I cant use my non protected content.

No, it's not. It just encrypts it from the source to the display so nothing can intercept it. But it does NOT prevent you from using your non protected content.

 

[duby229]

It prevents me from using it the way I have legal rights to use it. Therefore it prevents me from using it.

taking away one right, 2 rights, all rights... Whats the difference? Less bad, all bad... Why does it matter?

The point is it prevents me from using my non protected content the way I have rights to use it.

 

[Archer75]

It prevents me from using it the way I have legal rights to use it. Therefore it prevents me from using it.

taking away one right, 2 rights, all rights... Whats the difference? Less bad, all bad... Why does it matter?

The point is it prevents me from using my non protected content the way I have rights to use it.

No it doesn't. Just play the content. Nothing is stopping you.

 

[LstBrunnenG]

It prevents me from using it the way I have legal rights to use it. Therefore it prevents me from using it.

taking away one right, 2 rights, all rights... Whats the difference? Less bad, all bad... Why does it matter?

The point is it prevents me from using my non protected content the way I have rights to use it.

Yes, but that's only for content with DRM...aka protected content.

HDCP doesn't affect content without DRM, aka "non protected content."

I'm not defending AACS or the choices the MPAA is making. I think they're retarded. I'm just trying to prove that, just because Vista supports these restrictive measures, they don't affect people that don't use them.

 

[duby229]

No it doesn't. Just play the content. Nothing is stopping you.

Maybe you should actually look into HDCP... See what it does, and doesnt. Until then I'll let you think you know best.

I'll never use it, I'll never support it, and I'll never buy a product that does. When these guys realize that they are only screwing the vast majority of the customer base, they'll fix it. Until then they can sit and spin on the tallest pole.

 

[duby229]

Yes, but that's only for content with DRM...aka protected content.

HDCP doesn't affect content without DRM, aka "non protected content."

I'm not defending AACS or the choices the MPAA is making. I think they're retarded. I'm just trying to prove that, just because Vista supports these restrictive measures, they don't affect people that don't use them.

No the point in HDCP is NOT for DRM content... That is handled by other protocols...like AACS or others that are being implemented. The point in HDCP is solely and strictly for restricting NON protected content... The only point and purpose of its existence.

What is the point in encrypting encrypted content? Why? Then ask yourself about HDCP, and see if it still makes sense. It serves the same purpose that macrovision did, but is much more advanced. What was macrovision? Ever try to copy a DVD to a VCR? Didnt work did it? Welcome to HDCP.

I've legally bought that movie, I have the right to back it up. They have taken that right from me. Lets look at it from the perspective of a PC... On a PC,. I'll have my home video's, my movie, and music collection, which I backed up legally, and have the legal right to copy.Stored in an unprotected format..... You get the drift dont you?

 

[Archer75]

Maybe you should actually look into HDCP... See what it does, and doesnt. Until then I'll let you think you know best.

I have looked into it. It will NOT stop you from playing any of your content. It does not restrict the playing of non protected content. You can still play it just fine. You can copy it without issue.

I have no idea what you are smoking but I don't think you really understand the issue. I have played this content, created this content, copied this content, etc. Nothing stops me from doing so.

I can even very easily backup protected content. I have done it again and again.

 

[LstBrunnenG]

I finally understand what you're trying to say.

This is the first sentence in the Wikipedia article on HDCP under the Specification section.

HDCP's main target is to prevent transmission of non-encrypted high definition content.

Though it sounds similar, this is not the same as what you were trying to say:

You guys still havent looked into what HDCP is have you? HDCP is a method, among others, to prevent you from playing NON protected contect....

But it's close.

What Wikipedia says is that HDCP was designed to keep you from intercepting an unprotected signal coming from your set-top box and going to your HDTV. What you were saying is that HDCP is designed to keep people from being able to play unprotected content, like MP3s and AVIs.

I have yet to see any proof that Vista will encrypt your content when the provider doesn't specifically ask for it. Let's face it, how many people here actually have HDCP compliant video cards AND monitors? Yet Vista is quite happy to transmit data to the monitor on a nice, fat, unprotected pipe.

 

[brucedeluxe169]

ok, i hate DRM and the whole new HD era of file formats..... i really really hate them

I'm also a new Linux zealot....

but goddamn, Windows Vista is a wicked *fast* operating system. On my girlfriend's computer, after the initial (very quick) boot, it takes about 10 seconds for things to load into her superfetch, and then boom.... no load times.... for anything outside of a game. seriously, fast as all hell, and encoding huge files seems just as quick as XP on her comp.

Anyway, on to the DRM situation: I can see what duby is saying, and I agree with pretty much all of it, though I'm just not as passionate as he is Anyway, I'm sticking to the regular DVDs until they stop making them. Seriously, I just don't see enough of a difference with the HD formats, and the old DVDs are so easy to back up, and they take up waaay less drive space than the new formats.

And yea, HDCP sucks.... i wonder how difficult it will make things like personal video editing/backing up/etc once it is integrated into all new monitors/video cards, and the industry starts to really clamp down on usage...

*shudders*

 

[Archer75]

And yea, HDCP sucks.... i wonder how difficult it will make things like personal video editing/backing up/etc once it is integrated into all new monitors/video cards, and the industry starts to really clamp down on usage...

*shudders*

It won't make any difference. Nobody is going to require HDCP for you own content. HDCP video cards and monitors are ONLY required for viewing of protected HD content. That's it.

 

[Godofdestrcution]

LOL this topic is golden!

Don't worry Duby, if you don't install Vista, you won't hafta worry about DRM.

 

[Catweazle]

....
I have yet to see any proof that Vista will encrypt your content when the provider doesn't specifically ask for it. .....

No real need to consider burden of proof or provision of proof, is there? In the post before yours Archer75 has categorically denied the claims, and given clear proof that they are incorrect.

 

[Hypernova]

The way I see this is what those anti vista DRM people are suggesting:

If you have a vid at say 1980*1080 Vista will suddenly decide not to play them!!! Even if they are just plain AVI's!!!

Utterly stupid.

HDCP is there to protect "PROTECTED" content, nothing more.

 

[jimmyb]

HDCP encrypts non-encrypted display signals. This prevents content (both protected and unprotected) from being intercepted as it is being sent to the display device.

 

[Hypernova]

HDCP encrypts non-encrypted display signals. This prevents content (both protected and unprotected) from being intercepted as it is being sent to the display device.

I don't see how that's a negative if it's true. If the content is unprotected in the first place there is no need to try duplicate the file by ripping it from the data path, just make a copy of the file.

 

[duby229]

What if I want to play that content on a non HDCP display? What if I have my PC plugged into my receiver? What if I want to interface the PC, with my PVR?

Too many bad things. I cant think of a single situation where HDCP has a valid use. If you could name one use that benefits me, I'd appreciate it. After all they call it Digital Rights Management... I'd like to know who's rights they are managing? They take my rights away from me, and expect me to buy it up, and thank them for it... It's got to be some kind of superiority complex or something.

 

[Hypernova]

What if I want to play that content on a non HDCP display? What if I have my PC plugged into my receiver? What if I want to interface the PC, with my PVR?

Too many bad things. I cant think of a single situation where HDCP has a valid use. If you could name one use that benefits me, I'd appreciate it. After all they call it Digital Rights Management... I'd like to know who's rights they are managing? They take my rights away from me, and expect me to buy it up, and thank them for it... It's got to be some kind of superiority complex or something.

IIRC HDCP never said if it's playing unprotected stuff they will get degraded. It only happens when "protected" stuff is played. Even then the content actually need to set a flag telling the HDCP path to do that which IIRC no current HD disc does and won't be untill 2011.

IMO this from Wikipedia:
"Authentication process disallows non-licensed devices to receive HD content."

Should really be:
"Authentication process disallows non-licensed devices to receive PROTECTED HD content."

If your file isn't part of the HDCP loop (ie encrypted with AACS and what not) then HDCP won't give a damn.

 

[duby229]

OK, so if it doesnt do anything... Whats the point? Why bother with it in the first place?

 

[Catweazle]

What if I want to play that content on a non HDCP display?

Forget about the rest of it. You can't do what you describe there outside of a PC environment, so why would you expect to be able to do so within one?

 

[Catweazle]

OK, so if it doesnt do anything... Whats the point? Why bother with it in the first place?

Sorry for the double post but.....

The point of its inclusion in Windows is to turn the Windows running PC into a compliant device, so that the content can be played from within that environment.

That's the whole point, and the only point. All else you've heard is a load of rubbish.

 

[duby229]

Forget about the rest of it. You can't do what you describe there outside of a PC environment, so why would you expect to be able to do so within one?

Of course you can. That is the whole point. A PC just makes distribution to other devices a whole lot easier. HDCP basically kills that.

As far as making a PC a compliant device, well that is the problem. Being a compliant device I cant use my PC the way I always used it. HDCP means that I cant watch my legal unprotected content on my system.

 

[Catweazle]

Of course you can. That is the whole point.

News to me, but I'm always happy to concede when I'm wrong. Could you please indicate what non-computer devices allow protected HD-DVD or BluRay disks to be played correctly on non compliant hardware?

 

[Hypernova]

There's something people need to realise too, from wiki:
"Content providers for HD-DVD and Blu-ray media can set an Image Constraint Token (ICT) flag that will only output full-resolution digital signals using a digital HDCP connection. If a HDCP enabled player is connected to a non-HDCP-enabled television set with a non-HDCP-compliant analog connection (VGA or Component), and the content is flagged, the player will output a downsampled 960x540 pixel signal."

Notice the "can"? Degradtion is up to the content provider and currently non of they choose to use it and the reason is in the second marked sentence. Most of current HD TV's aren't HDCP therefore if the discs have the ICT set then it won't play properly. Therefore the movie studios won't dare to activate ICT until years later when there is enough HDCP TV's around.

 

[duby229]

News to me, but I'm always happy to concede when I'm wrong. Could you please indicate what non-computer devices allow protected HD-DVD or BluRay disks to be played correctly on non compliant hardware?

HDCP is NOT about protected content... It never was. It's about keeping tabs on unprotected content. Which is what I was referring to.

 

[Catweazle]

^^

Dunno about the situation where you live, but basically all of the home entertainment appliances sold here in Australia and capable of displaying or transmitting the required resolutions are already compliant. It's really only PC hardware which lags behind in that regard, hence the need to turn the PC into a compliant device, by including the capability in the OS rather than in hardware/firmware


^

duby, your claim has already been negated and proven incorrect. Please answer the question.

 

[duby229]

As far as the ICT flag goes, I think they will wait until most people already own one and have one in there home that they use regularly. Even here in Ohio, most of the electronics sold are HDCP compliant, but very few people actually have one yet.

Anyhow the ICT flaf down samples video quality, but that is not the concern with HDCP.

edit: who proved it incorrect? I'd like to see this. How could fact be proven incorrect? What question do I need to answer?