[[email protected]]

Making the rounds on /. is an interesting discussion which may be relevant
here. The following is a small lift from the article, and the link is
below:

________________________________
Vista's content protection mechanism only allows protected content to be
sent over interfaces that also have content-protection facilities built in.
Currently the most common high-end audio output interface is S/PDIF
(Sony/Philips Digital Interface Format). Most newer audio cards, for
example, feature TOSlink digital optical output for high-quality sound
reproduction, and even the latest crop of motherboards with integrated
audio provide at least coax (and often optical) digital output. Since
S/PDIF doesn't provide any content protection, Vista requires that it be
disabled when playing protected content. In other words if you've invested
a pile of money into a high-end audio setup fed from a digital output, you
won't be able to use it with protected content. Similarly, component
(YPbPr) video will be disabled by Vista's content protection, so the same
applies to a high-end video setup fed from component video.
_________________________________

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...vista_cost.txt

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message
...
Making the rounds on /. is an interesting discussion which may be relevant
here. The following is a small lift from the article, and the link is
below:

________________________________
Vista's content protection mechanism only allows protected content to be
sent over interfaces that also have content-protection facilities built
in.
Currently the most common high-end audio output interface is S/PDIF
(Sony/Philips Digital Interface Format). Most newer audio cards, for
example, feature TOSlink digital optical output for high-quality sound
reproduction, and even the latest crop of motherboards with integrated
audio provide at least coax (and often optical) digital output. Since
S/PDIF doesn't provide any content protection, Vista requires that it be
disabled when playing protected content. In other words if you've
invested
a pile of money into a high-end audio setup fed from a digital output, you
won't be able to use it with protected content. Similarly, component
(YPbPr) video will be disabled by Vista's content protection, so the same
applies to a high-end video setup fed from component video.
_________________________________

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...vista_cost.txt

Sounds like a good reason to stay with XP until Microsoft drops support (as
they just have with 2000 and ME). Hopefully by then a revitalized Justice
Dept might look into it.

[[email protected]]

Harry Lavo wrote:

Sounds like a good reason to stay with XP until Microsoft drops support
(as
they just have with 2000 and ME). Hopefully by then a revitalized
Justice Dept might look into it.

This idea of content restriction (or "protection" depending upon whose side
of the fence you live) is so different than anything that's come before.
As PC's become more integrated into our listening environments, and as
these subtle, and not so subtle restrictions manifest, the idea that we,
the consumer, somehow "own" or decide what we can do with what we buy is
becoming completely changed.

With the introduction of WGA, software updates must be "approved" by MS. It
is impossible to even upgrade an XP system in many ways without WGA. You
can forget it with Vista. It is like the old Outer Limits TV show.."WE
control all you see and hear..." WGA and DMA are like OBIT (the Outer Band
Individualized Teletracer, for those too young to remember this great show
from the 60s).

I am convinced (and I don't think I'm being paranoid) that the record
companies would like to stop all CD production, and move to a download
"rental" process for music. MS, for their part, are only interested in
being the platform for this content control.

Steve Jobs is half-way in the consumer camp. At the same time I understand
that record companies are putting more and more pressure on Apple to fork
over concessions. Jobs has leverage simply because it's his good fortune
to control upwards of 80% of the music download market. I do not think
that Jobs is any more interested in the proliferation of non-DMA than the
boys at MS, but Jobs is, I think, smarter (and definitely more nimble) than
those caught up within the bloated bureaucracy at MS. And I think he will
do what he can to keep the RIAA anti-consumer forces at bay as long as he
can, because I think he understands that consumers are mostly anti DMA.
After all, Apple is still a consumer oriented company. MS could not care
less about individual consumers, since its customer are Dell, HP, and
others selling thousands of PCs to large corporations.

The music industry will be a good catch for MS if they are able to control
all aspects of the distribution platform (here I am not talking about the
retail channel, but the software and hardware architecture that runs it
all). I don't think many people thought this out when digital recording
was first devised. Back then it was "perfect sound forever." It is
becoming, "perfect sound for as long as we allow you to listen."

But what's all this to me? I run Linux and have a ton of classical records
in my closet. I recently updated my kernel, and bought a new Denon MC
phonograph cartridge. The former was free, the latter was simply a
bargain. So I am happy.

mp

[bob]

wrote:

This idea of content restriction (or "protection" depending upon whose side
of the fence you live) is so different than anything that's come before.
As PC's become more integrated into our listening environments, and as
these subtle, and not so subtle restrictions manifest, the idea that we,
the consumer, somehow "own" or decide what we can do with what we buy is
becoming completely changed.

Let's not forget that you the consumer have *never* had the legal right
to do anything you wanted with your recordings. You merely purchased a
license to use the recordings in certain ways. It's always been
illegal--if unenforeable--to make copies and sell or give them away to
other people. The difference in the digital age is that it's so easy to
do. I can't fault the recording industry for wanting to use the same
technology to right this, though I'm not about to endorse every step
they've taken to do so.

With the introduction of WGA, software updates must be "approved" by MS. It
is impossible to even upgrade an XP system in many ways without WGA. You
can forget it with Vista. It is like the old Outer Limits TV show.."WE
control all you see and hear..." WGA and DMA are like OBIT (the Outer Band
Individualized Teletracer, for those too young to remember this great show
from the 60s).

I am convinced (and I don't think I'm being paranoid) that the record
companies would like to stop all CD production, and move to a download
"rental" process for music.

I supect what they'd like most is to turn the clock back about 10 years
and leave it there. But if nobody's buying CDs anymore, switching to a
rental/streaming model will be a necessity, not a choice.

Whether this is good or bad depends on the price, doesn't it? Right
now, for $15 a month, you can have access to a library of 300,000 CDs
on Rhapsody. That is a much better deal than buying individual disks.
The downside, of course, is that you have to settle for 128kbps
downloads, but that's a temporary bandwidth problem. And yes, you may
have to pay multiple fees to have that music in your home, office, car,
and portable player. But you're still way ahead of the old purchase
model.

MS, for their part, are only interested in
being the platform for this content control.

Steve Jobs is half-way in the consumer camp. At the same time I understand
that record companies are putting more and more pressure on Apple to fork
over concessions. Jobs has leverage simply because it's his good fortune
to control upwards of 80% of the music download market. I do not think
that Jobs is any more interested in the proliferation of non-DMA than the
boys at MS, but Jobs is, I think, smarter (and definitely more nimble) than
those caught up within the bloated bureaucracy at MS. And I think he will
do what he can to keep the RIAA anti-consumer forces at bay as long as he
can, because I think he understands that consumers are mostly anti DMA.
After all, Apple is still a consumer oriented company. MS could not care
less about individual consumers, since its customer are Dell, HP, and
others selling thousands of PCs to large corporations.

Jobs made an interesting decision in going with a purchased download
model. He may yet regret it.

The music industry will be a good catch for MS if they are able to control
all aspects of the distribution platform (here I am not talking about the
retail channel, but the software and hardware architecture that runs it
all). I don't think many people thought this out when digital recording
was first devised. Back then it was "perfect sound forever." It is
becoming, "perfect sound for as long as we allow you to listen."

But what's all this to me? I run Linux and have a ton of classical records
in my closet. I recently updated my kernel, and bought a new Denon MC
phonograph cartridge. The former was free, the latter was simply a
bargain. So I am happy.

I suspect I already own most of the music I will ever own, so this
isn't that big a deal to me, either. And I suspect younger folks are
going to take to whatever model becomes dominant without a thought. So
I'm not sure what the problem is.

bob

[[email protected]]

bob wrote:

Let's not forget that you the consumer have *never* had the legal right
to do anything you wanted with your recordings. You merely purchased a
license to use the recordings in certain ways. It's always been
illegal--if unenforeable--to make copies and sell or give them away to
other people. The difference in the digital age is that it's so easy to
do. I can't fault the recording industry for wanting to use the same
technology to right this, though I'm not about to endorse every step
they've taken to do so.

It is unethical to give copyrighted music away, but I suspect almost
everyone has done it at one time or another. In the days of the compact
cassette this was never much of an issue, because cassettes were a very
poor medium, fidelity-wise. And they never lasted very long (at least mine
never seemed to). And, unless one was very careful, even ones own Lps did
not last long, either.

I understand the need to maintain law and order, and the need to engage in
ethical conduct. But as we have all argued before, some of these newer
restrictions are, in my estimation, above what is necessary in order to
maintain the copyright holder's warrant. But this is not the real issue.
There is more going on, here, than just protecting starving artists.

As far as copying goes, if it can be heard it can be copied. And there is
no code that cannot be hacked. But think about this scenario. All music
comes to you via your high speed connection. Due to DRM it can only be
played back through certain equipment. Your living room controller (maybe
a PC, maybe not) feeds the downloaded authenticated digits directly into
your powered speaker (or digital amp). Everything is done in the digital
domain. You pick and choose your music just like you choose your PPV
television shows. Copying will be more difficult, since hardware will
check to make sure that whatever is being played is authenticated; your
digital amp might simply "refuse" to play a copy. And these kinds of
componenets might be all you can legally buy. I suspect this is the future
of home entertainment. It might take 30 or 40 years before it all happens,
though.

I supect what they'd like most is to turn the clock back about 10 years
and leave it there. But if nobody's buying CDs anymore, switching to a
rental/streaming model will be a necessity, not a choice.

Again, I think it is inevitable that content will be mostly on-line. The
limiting factor, now, is bandwidth, as you state in your post. It is a
technical infrastructure issue, and will soon not be much of a problem to
anyone.

Jobs made an interesting decision in going with a purchased download
model. He may yet regret it.

If nothing else, how this all plays out will be interesting to watch. From
a marketing standpoint, Jobs and Apple are much more adept than Ballmer and
MS. The latter cannot seem to do much of anything right, these days. As
near as I can tell, Vista does nothing anyone really needs, or wants--at
least from the consumer end. So it is a release meant to enjoy support
from content providers. They are the ones who will benefit, if anyone
does, from this grotesque mishmash of code. Will it succeed? Probably.
At least in its own way. MS has inertia going for it, but that is about
all. However, inertia cannot be underestimated.

I suspect I already own most of the music I will ever own, so this
isn't that big a deal to me, either. And I suspect younger folks are
going to take to whatever model becomes dominant without a thought. So
I'm not sure what the problem is.

In my view you are right. And personally, I am like you. As I implied
earlier, there is not much else I want to buy, music-wise. As it is, I
have a hard time listening to everything I already own. But at least I can
say I own what I have. On the other hand, after I take a knee, will anyone
know what to do with all those records I've managed to stash away, over the
years? I think record, CD, or any music collectors, for that matter, will
be extinct, or at best a curiosity, by the time the next generation is
grown. Why collect anything when you can order whatever you want on
demand, just like that bald headed guy on television, the one on the
spaceship, ordered his Earl Gray tea?

mp

[bob]

wrote:
It is unethical to give copyrighted music away, but I suspect almost
everyone has done it at one time or another. In the days of the compact
cassette this was never much of an issue, because cassettes were a very
poor medium, fidelity-wise. And they never lasted very long (at least mine
never seemed to). And, unless one was very careful, even ones own Lps did
not last long, either.

Also, making cassette copies took time and attention--to get levels
right, make sure everything fit on the side, etc. Copying CDs is a
snap. And with peer-to-peer sites, you can, in effect, make copies for
thousands of people you don't know, just as fast.

I understand the need to maintain law and order, and the need to engage in
ethical conduct. But as we have all argued before, some of these newer
restrictions are, in my estimation, above what is necessary in order to
maintain the copyright holder's warrant.

Like what, specifically? There's a lot of paranoid handwringing going
on about worst-case restrictions, but the restrictions I've seen so far
don't look onerous to me at all. iTunes downloads can be put on five
computers, I think, and burned to unlimited CDRs. I fail to see how
that restricts anybody who isn't in the piracy business.

Besides, market forces will limit the viability of DRM restrictions.
The thing that really made iPod/iTunes successful was ease-of-use and
integration. DRM restrictions run counter to that, and consumers will
move away from vendors who make those restrictions too onerous.

Also, the actors with the strongest incentive to restrict use--the
record companies--are also the actors in the weakest position. It's the
hardware guys like Jobs who are in control, and they don't want any
more restrictions than they need to get the music companies on board.
At the end of the day, I don't think MS is going to be all that
different from Apple in this regard. It has no reason to be.

But this is not the real issue.
There is more going on, here, than just protecting starving artists.

As far as copying goes, if it can be heard it can be copied. And there is
no code that cannot be hacked. But think about this scenario. All music
comes to you via your high speed connection. Due to DRM it can only be
played back through certain equipment. Your living room controller (maybe
a PC, maybe not) feeds the downloaded authenticated digits directly into
your powered speaker (or digital amp). Everything is done in the digital
domain. You pick and choose your music just like you choose your PPV
television shows. Copying will be more difficult, since hardware will
check to make sure that whatever is being played is authenticated; your
digital amp might simply "refuse" to play a copy. And these kinds of
componenets might be all you can legally buy. I suspect this is the future
of home entertainment. It might take 30 or 40 years before it all happens,
though.

And I don't see the problem here. Seriously. You can listen to music.
You can make and play legal copies. What is the big deal?

Today, for a price--pushing $20 per CD--I can listen to anything I
want, anywhere, anytime. Sure, it's possible to design a DRM system
that would prevent you from doing that, but why in the world would
anyone want to? It would be the most boneheaded marketing move the
recording industry ever pulled--and that is saying something. And those
restrictions wouldn't last a week. Consider the value that modern
consumers (i.e., those younger than you and me) place on portability,
and ask yourself how anyone will sell music to that generation which
isn't easily transferrable from one device to another?

bob

[[email protected]]

bob wrote:

wrote:

some of these newer
restrictions are, in my estimation, above what is necessary in order to
maintain the copyright holder's warrant.

Like what, specifically?

A few highlights from the article I first mentioned are below. Please
remember that this is not just some anti-MS nutball writing. Google "Peter
Gutman, computer science" and you can find out more about the author:

* Vista's content protection mechanism only allows protected content to be
sent over interfaces that also have content-protection facilities built in.

* As well as overt disabling of functionality, there's also covert disabling
of functionality. [with an example cited of AEC in PC voice communication]

* Alongside the all-or-nothing approach of disabling output, Vista requires
that any interface that provides high-quality output degrade the signal
quality that passes through it. This is done through a "constrictor" that
downgrades the signal to a much lower-quality one, then up-scales it again
back to the original spec, but with a significant loss in quality.

* Elimination of unified drivers for an entire range of devices.

* Further problems occur with audio drivers. To the system, HDMI audio
looks like S/PDIF, a deliberate design decision to make handling of drivers
easier. In order to provide the ability to disable output, it's necessary
to make HDMI codecs deliberately incompatible with S/PDIF codecs, despite
the fact that they were specifically designed to appear identical in order
to ease driver support and reduce development costs.

* Once a weakness is found in a particular driver or device, that driver
will have its signature revoked by Microsoft, which means that it will
cease to function (details on this are a bit vague here, presumably some
minimum functionality like generic 640x480 VGA support will still be
available in order for the system to boot).

* Content-protection "features" like tilt bits also have worrying denial-of-
service (DoS) implications. With the introduction of tilt bits...designed-in
resilience is gone. The homeland security implications of this seem quite
serious, since a tiny, easily-hidden piece of malware would be enough to
render a machine unusable, while the very nature of Vista's content
protection would make it almost impossible to determine why the
denial-of-service is occurring.

*...only certain layouts of a board are allowed in order to make it harder
for outsiders to access parts of the board. Possibly for the first time
ever, computer design is being dictated not by electronic design rules,
physical layout requirements, and thermal issues, but by the wishes of the
content industry.

* The inability to perform decoding in software also means that any premium-
content compression scheme not supported by the...hardware can't be
implemented.

[bob]

wrote:
bob wrote:

wrote:

some of these newer
restrictions are, in my estimation, above what is necessary in order to
maintain the copyright holder's warrant.

Like what, specifically?

A few highlights from the article I first mentioned are below. Please
remember that this is not just some anti-MS nutball writing. Google "Peter
Gutman, computer science" and you can find out more about the author:

* Vista's content protection mechanism only allows protected content to be
sent over interfaces that also have content-protection facilities built in.

* As well as overt disabling of functionality, there's also covert disabling
of functionality. [with an example cited of AEC in PC voice communication]

* Alongside the all-or-nothing approach of disabling output, Vista requires
that any interface that provides high-quality output degrade the signal
quality that passes through it. This is done through a "constrictor" that
downgrades the signal to a much lower-quality one, then up-scales it again
back to the original spec, but with a significant loss in quality.

* Elimination of unified drivers for an entire range of devices.

* Further problems occur with audio drivers. To the system, HDMI audio
looks like S/PDIF, a deliberate design decision to make handling of drivers
easier. In order to provide the ability to disable output, it's necessary
to make HDMI codecs deliberately incompatible with S/PDIF codecs, despite
the fact that they were specifically designed to appear identical in order
to ease driver support and reduce development costs.

* Once a weakness is found in a particular driver or device, that driver
will have its signature revoked by Microsoft, which means that it will
cease to function (details on this are a bit vague here, presumably some
minimum functionality like generic 640x480 VGA support will still be
available in order for the system to boot).

* Content-protection "features" like tilt bits also have worrying denial-of-
service (DoS) implications. With the introduction of tilt bits...designed-in
resilience is gone. The homeland security implications of this seem quite
serious, since a tiny, easily-hidden piece of malware would be enough to
render a machine unusable, while the very nature of Vista's content
protection would make it almost impossible to determine why the
denial-of-service is occurring.

*...only certain layouts of a board are allowed in order to make it harder
for outsiders to access parts of the board. Possibly for the first time
ever, computer design is being dictated not by electronic design rules,
physical layout requirements, and thermal issues, but by the wishes of the
content industry.

* The inability to perform decoding in software also means that any premium-
content compression scheme not supported by the...hardware can't be
implemented.

Two questions:

1) Will any of the foregoing prevent you from ripping your CDs and
playing the files on mulitple computers, feeding them to your audio
system, or burning them to multiple CDRs?

2) Will any of the foregoing limit the number of devices on which you
can listen to iTunes downloads, beyond the restrictions those downloads
come with?

If not, then all these "restrictions" don't really restrict your use of
music, do they?

bob

[[email protected]]

bob wrote:

Two questions:

1) Will any of the foregoing prevent you from ripping your CDs and
playing the files on mulitple computers, feeding them to your audio
system, or burning them to multiple CDRs?

Not as it stands. It will all depend on how far things progress in this
manner.

2) Will any of the foregoing limit the number of devices on which you
can listen to iTunes downloads, beyond the restrictions those downloads
come with?

Again, not as it stands. iTunes does not provide high quality signal at
this time. As you mentioned in your previous post, the limiting factor is
bandwidth. As higher speed Ethernet becomes more readily available, things
will change if these restrictions predominate.

I do not speak of how things are, today; but of what the future may hold for
us.

mp

[bob]

wrote:
bob wrote:

Two questions:

1) Will any of the foregoing prevent you from ripping your CDs and
playing the files on mulitple computers, feeding them to your audio
system, or burning them to multiple CDRs?

Not as it stands. It will all depend on how far things progress in this
manner.

2) Will any of the foregoing limit the number of devices on which you
can listen to iTunes downloads, beyond the restrictions those downloads
come with?

Again, not as it stands. iTunes does not provide high quality signal at
this time. As you mentioned in your previous post, the limiting factor is
bandwidth. As higher speed Ethernet becomes more readily available, things
will change if these restrictions predominate.

I do not speak of how things are, today; but of what the future may hold for
us.

Which is exactly the problem. This discussion isn't about anything
real. It's about a worst-case scenario in which disparate industries
conspire to do things that are decidedly not in the financial interests
of at least one of those industries. That is exceedingly unlikely to
happen. Eventually, the marketplace (perhaps with a little regulatory
guidance) will figure out a reasonable compromise. It might be a bit
messy in the meantime, however.

bob