Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Longhorn to Require Monitor-Based DRM

Posted by Zonk on Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:24 AM
from the it's-everywhere-it's-everywhere dept.
Mr_Silver writes "Engadget has an interesting article regarding a new feature in Longhorn entitled PVP-OPM (Protected Video Path - Output Protection Management) which detects the capabilities of the display devices you are using and manages how (and if at all) content is sent to it. In short, this means that if Longhorn detects that your monitor is not "secure" enough, then your premium video content won't play on it until you buy one that is. Who gets to decide? The content providers of course." From the article: "So what will happen when you try to play premium content on your incompatible monitor? If you're "lucky", the content will go through a resolution constrictor. The purpose of this constrictor is to down-sample high-resolution content to below a certain number of pixels. The newly down-sampled content is then blown back up to match the resolution of your monitor. This is much like when you shrink a JPEG and then zoom into it. Much of the clarity is lost. The result is a picture far fuzzier than it need be."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Outstanding (Score:5, Insightful)

    by panxerox (575545) * on Friday July 15 2005, @10:25AM (#13073336)
    As we live in a capitalistic society this of course means the end of Microsoft as an os providor as people generally don't want to buy crap (tm). I mean who would "want" to buy this?! I hope Linux is ready for the desktop (at least for Joe SP) when this rolls out because this is THE chance for linux to explode into the market.
    • Re:Outstanding (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2005, @10:27AM (#13073369)
      people generally don't want to buy crap (tm). I mean who would "want" to buy this?!

      Anyone who doesn't care, which is going to be a lot of people. They'll buy a new PC, which will merely happen to come with this kind of restrictive DRM. But it'll come with an appropriate monitor too, so they'll never notice.
      • Re:Outstanding (Score:5, Insightful)

        by infochuck (468115) on Friday July 15 2005, @10:44AM (#13073619)
        Anyone who doesn't care...

        Or anyone who doesn't know - ie, pretty much all non-geeks. You think MS is going to plainly and clearly announce this 'feature' on the box (yeah, yeah, who gets Windows in a box)?
      • Re:Outstanding (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sgant (178166) <ksgant@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Friday July 15 2005, @11:09AM (#13073938) Homepage Journal
        I don' buy that...I'm thinking a lot of people WILL care.

        For instance...right now the average Joe would be more apt to buy a Windows base machine because this is the one that "runs the stuff he wants" like games and other stuff. I've talked to many people to see if they would switch to OSX or Linux and the first things out of their mouths are "but does will it run _____". Once they understand that DRM will constrict everything they do like "hey man, that machine you got if you get a movie and you don't have the right monitor, the movie will look like shit...you have to buy a pre-approved monitor yo which costs more yo" (I threw in the "yo's"...average Joe's use that today).

        I don't see this flying well with consumers at all. Because it may come with the appropriate monitor for that manufacturer, it's the CONTENT people that get to decide what is an appropriate monitor. "Oh, we have a partnership with Sony and you have an NEC monitor...sorry, downsampling for you!"
        • by jfengel (409917) on Friday July 15 2005, @11:27AM (#13074133) Homepage Journal
          That's precisely the question, and we'll just have to see.

          Generally, when one asks "Will it run ____?" the blank is filled in with some commercial piece of software, usually a game or a productivity app. And the answer will always be yes: Photoshop, MS Office, Half Life 83, etc. will all run beautifully on this. Probably even the old versions will, since they're not video players. The same will apply to all of the most common media players; in fact, Windows Media Player will run right there.

          The most obvious question from the slightly more insightful user is, "Will it play my existing DVDs?", and that's the biggest question mark. If the answer turns out to be "No", if somebody upgrades their laptop and discovers the next time that they board an airplane that they have to read the in-flight magazine rather than watch Tomb Raider 9 3/4, then you're going to see some serious, serious backlash.

          I'm going to assume that MS knows that, and so existing DVD formats will probably play exactly as they do now (which does have various protections anyway, though they're easily bypassed.)

          Instead, I expect that this will apply primarily to new content (or rather, newly-coded content). For that, question would be "But will it run NFF (New Fangled Format)?" and the answer is "Yes". The flip side, "Will NFF run on my existing box" will be "No", but I think that user backlash on that is smaller than you might expect. They could take it as an opportunity to switch to Linux/OS X/PDP 11, but as long as they're buying a new computer, they could buy one with Longhorn, which will run NFF along with all of their old programs.

          The user is kept on the upgrade treadmill because at each step the logical choice will be "forward" rather than "right" or "left". That's partly because they expect that a side-step will just put them on a different treadmill, which is a whole different debate.

          So I don't expect this to cause a mass defection from Windows, at least not by itself. Other factors (cheaper Macs, improved Linux, the stunning revival of the Timex Sinclair) will make it hard to tease out whether I'm right or wrong, so maybe all this is moot, but, well, it's Slashdot and I get to shoot my mouth off anyway.
      • Re:Outstanding (Score:5, Insightful)

        Until they plug their video capable iPod into it.

        All the good stuff they pull out of longhorn, then they keep crap like this? Screw them. The day it stops making my life easier to have a Windows machine lying around is the last day I'll ever use it.
    • by Digital_Quartz (75366) on Friday July 15 2005, @10:38AM (#13073530) Homepage
      Do you honestly think it will be possible to purchase and watch content on a linux machine? Do you think the movie industry is going to give you something playable on your un-DRMed box? You might pirate it.

      Of course, we all know that making bits not copyable is like making water not wet. But I think you underestimate the MPAA's lobbying capabilities. I fully expect it to be illegal to posses or discuss wet water any day now.
    • Re:Outstanding (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rpdillon (715137) on Friday July 15 2005, @11:48AM (#13074392) Homepage
      Microsoft has been peddling crap for years and it hasn't really made people switch, by and large.

      This is Yet Another Form of DRM, which in general is a Bad Thing, IMHO. I always hated CD keys for any software that could be used offline (like and OS, or most non-MMO games). When Windows XP went to not only requiring a key, but also requiring an online activation, as well as not letting me change my hardware too much without checking in, that sealed the deal. I only use Linux on all my machines now.

      But as to your point: if you'd told people in 1991 that their OS wouldn't let them install without a secret key, and without going online to verify their system, they would've said market forces would prevent such a crappy product from being a success. If you'd told them that it would analyze your hardware, and only let you upgrade a certain number of times or in a certain way before it forced you to check back in with the company who wrote it, they would've called you insane. But here we are, and people are buying it like there is no tomorrow.

      So, as much as I'd like to think the consumers will rise up and say "No more! I want to decide when I upgrade my hardware, I want to decide if I have to contact Microsoft, and I want to decide where, when and how I enjoy media I pay for!", there is no indication that it will ever happen.

      Of course, I feel the same about iTunes and Apple. Every around here lauds Apple's success at making DRM "work", but I stand by, thinking "It only works if you use an iPod, and if you run Windows or OS X, and only if you want Apple to dictate which devices can play your music." Sure, there is Crossover Office that pseudo-supports iTunes under Linux, and there is JHymn, so you can crack all the DRM on every file you download, but c'mon - why support a product that goes out of its way NOT to support you?

      And really, it is kind of sad, because it doesn't do anything to stop pirates (all the songs on iTunes are available on peer to peer networks already, so what are we trying to prevent?), and just hinders me from having a Linux client, playing the songs on my JetAudio X5 or my Neuros, or streaming them to my MythTV box in the living room so we can listen to the music during dinner.

      I'm not a huge Star Wars 1-3 fan, but I saw all of them in the theaters. The best line in all 3 was Padme's line in the Senate Hall:

      "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause..."

      And so it is.
      • Re:Outstanding (Score:5, Insightful)

        by koi88 (640490) on Friday July 15 2005, @10:39AM (#13073546)

        They may see "DRM security features"
        I can see the sales people in computer stores tell their customers that these security features make surfing the web and everything safe.
        I know it will happen.
      • What this means is (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mcc (14761) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Friday July 15 2005, @10:44AM (#13073624) Homepage
        The problem is, people won't KNOW what it is

        What this means is, WE HAVE TO TELL THEM.

        People aren't going to refrain from buying Longhorn. People in a year or so literally won't have a choice; if you want a new computer you'll be buying Longhorn. However, we can make an impact on the secure monitors. It wouldn't be that hard to convince people (friends, family, neighbors, etc) that the new secure monitors and video cards are to blame (which they are, because if the secure monitors aren't picked up then the feature won't be used by content providers). Explain the feature enough that they'd understand it-- perhaps explain that the movie companies and microsoft want to stop you from doing certain things with your computer, and they can only do it if people buy these monitors-- them that and try to get them to pick some other brand.

        Longhorn is unstoppable. Microsoft can and will do literally anything it wants. However a consumer backlash against the feature itself is possible as long as the hardware is targetted. Unfortunately I fear the American consumer is so weak right now no one will bother to try.
        • Problem is, they won't listen. Society tends to be fairly apathetic about this sort of thing.

          While not an entirely similar instance, I have been pushing all my friends and family to boycott the RIAA and MPAA based on their recent tactics. Some of them are even file sharers.. Yet they don't care. They will happily shell out 18 bucks for the latest pop CD, even though I have explained to them time and time again that the artist makes practically nothing from CD sales..

          I hate being surrounded by apathy. Some solutions are incredibly simple, yet people aren't willing to make just a little extra effort to do the RightThing(tm).

          • by JWW (79176) on Friday July 15 2005, @11:01AM (#13073830)
            Funny thing though. While people are apethetic about DRM and its impact they are also apethetic to copyright which is why so many illegally download mp3 s and video.

            Both the problem and its draconian solutions depend on apathy.
          • by bruce_s_r (173519) * on Friday July 15 2005, @11:01AM (#13073835) Homepage
            Thats the trouble now-a-days. Nobody cares about apathy any more!
          • by mapmaker (140036) on Friday July 15 2005, @11:12AM (#13073970)
            Problem is, they won't listen. Society tends to be fairly apathetic about this sort of thing.

            Actually, I think TV is the one thing that average Americans do care about. You can take away their civil liberties, you can expand copyrights till the cows come home, but if you fuck with their TV they will rise up (off the couch) and destroy you.

      • Not likely (Score:5, Insightful)

        by paranode (671698) on Friday July 15 2005, @10:40AM (#13073560)
        It's doubtful OSX will not comply with this. It is a standard that is already built into TVs but was never really implemented in computer monitors. It will be included with HDDVD and probably Blu Ray. It is also being done by the manufacturers of the hardware and Microsoft is just implementing software to work with it. You really expect the creators of AAC to just say 'Hey we don't like content protection?'

        As far as Linux, expect that it won't work at all unless someone can manage to find a crack to unprotect content.

        • Re:Not likely (Score:5, Informative)

          by wankledot (712148) on Friday July 15 2005, @11:03AM (#13073855)
          Lets clear a few things up:

          Apple did not create AAC. (Dolby Labs did) AAC does not have DRM. (Apple's DRM only applies to content from their store, not all AAC files.) Apple could easily apply its DRM to pretty much any codec.

          Saying that AAC is related to content protection at all is just pure unmitigated bullshit. I'm starting to think you don't know what you're talking about.

          Apple has not licensed its DRM to anyone, and there is no DRM in the system itself except for its own products (specifically the iTunes Music Store.) I think the chances of the Monitors pref pane ever having a "security" tab are nil. Go sell your FUD elsewhere.

        • Re:Outstanding (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Concerned Onlooker (473481) on Friday July 15 2005, @10:56AM (#13073763) Journal
          The hardware may be inexpensive (not cheap), but the quality control isn't. You're missing the point of what Apple is all about.
            • Re:Outstanding (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Nasarius (593729) on Friday July 15 2005, @11:42AM (#13074321)
              I think you're misinterpreting the GP. Quality control isn't about picking the hardware so much as supporting it. There's a good reason why Apple has succeeded at plug+play while Windows XP still doesn't recognize my very generic Intel PRO/100 Ethernet adapter. If you only support a small range of hardware, it's much easier to support it well. This is perhaps the most important reason that OS X won't run on generic Intels: not some conspiracy by Apple, but the simple lack of hardware drivers.
            • Re:Outstanding (Score:5, Insightful)

              by metamatic (202216) on Friday July 15 2005, @12:25PM (#13074827) Homepage Journal
              There's a lot more to Apple design than painting it white.

              For instance, I have a G4 tower. It's a fantastic piece of design work, from a technical standpoint. If you want to service the hardware, you just power the machine off, pull the ring-pull, and the side drops open. All the cards are laid out there for you to tinker with. You don't even have to unplug anything. When you're done, lift the side back up and it clicks into place. Push the power button and you're ready to go.

              I build PCs, and even though I'm picky about components I've not managed to find anything remotely as good in the PC world. (In fact, if anyone knows of a PC case that's as good, that'll take 3 hard drives, please let me know.) As for consumer PCs--forget it. I had to service a friend's HP Compaq machine, and it was a piece of crap. Cheap plastic, awkward to get to the RAM and drives.
        • Re:Outstanding (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Jeremi (14640) on Friday July 15 2005, @11:23AM (#13074089) Homepage
          And OS X is UNIX for morons.


          True, if by "morons" you mean "people who want to get work done with their computer, rather than spend hours fighting with it to get it configured properly".

  • by Glog (303500) on Friday July 15 2005, @10:26AM (#13073352)
    Microsoft is considering the acquisition of an ASCII art company.
  • YESSSS (Score:5, Funny)

    by KDan (90353) on Friday July 15 2005, @10:26AM (#13073357) Homepage
    This is just the feature I've been waiting for. I wouldn't dream of buying a monitor without this priceless capability.

    Daniel
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2005, @10:27AM (#13073362)
    My Computer -> Computer

    My Documents -> Documents

    My Monitor -> Our Monitor!

    Seriously, who didn't see this coming?
  • extreme case of DRM (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PureCreditor (300490) on Friday July 15 2005, @10:27AM (#13073368)
    isn't this a case of indirect industrial price-fixing? by forcing you to buy a DRM-enabled monitor, they can easily collude and charge a, say, 20% premium, over a standard LCD.

    Another reason why Tiger and Leopard makes Longhorn look long-in-the-tooth ^^
  • A Longhorn feature that everyone hopes is vaporware!
  • by gunner800 (142959) on Friday July 15 2005, @10:32AM (#13073434) Homepage
    I doubt they have monitors or video cards that can detect, say, a simple splitter or repeater. It's the sort of thing a third-year EE student can build (fourth year for digital signals).

    It will stop some casual piracy, you know, the kind companies and congressmen say they don't care about. Mostly it will get Microsoft a piece of the monitor market without the need to develop useful features or compete on price.
    • by Chairboy (88841) on Friday July 15 2005, @10:46AM (#13073649) Homepage
      I think you're assuming that the signal between the computer and the monitor will be analog. For this to work, it would likely be an encrypted digital stream that would take more then even a fourth year EE to decode.

      The keyword is encrypted. It's not just a matter of 'figuring out the protocols', it's also necessary to defeat encryption that is specifically designed to stop folks who are trying to do what you describe.

      Is it impossible? No. But it's a lot more complicated then just downloading the protocol, taking a scope to the wires, and hacking together an interface.
        • As soon as you need actual hardware to pirate the signal, copying movies becomes a restricted occupation again, just like selling free cable boxes.

          No, copying movies the first time becomes a restricted occupation. Once a single unencrypted copy exists, then making a million more is no more difficult than it is today.

          Whip out your favorite P2P client, and search for some copyrighted video. Do you see a hundred different rips made by each of the hundred different people sharing a copy? No, you see one or two of the best rips, each with hundreds of identical copies shared, in part because the swarming download protocols and hashing algorithms fundamentally encourage that behavior.

          So what difference will in-monitor DRM make? Instead of having a few zealous groups using software to rip tons of movies that are then shared by millions of people, we'll have a few zealous groups using hardware to rip tons of movies that are then shared by hundreds of millions of people.

          Wait - why will there be more people sharing these rips? Because most people will own some of the billions of non-DRM-capable monitors in existance, and the moron DRM-using publishers will have thus made it impossible for them to play a full-quality copy of these videos unless they have an illegal copy. Publishers couldn't do anything more stupid if they put a "Download free movies on P2P! It's the best!" advertisement at the start of every show!
  • by Maul (83993) on Friday July 15 2005, @10:34AM (#13073464) Journal
    So, of the major features that were originally supposed to be the selling point in Longhorn...

    WinFS pretty much seems indefinately stalled.

    Avalon seems to be delayed until after release.

    The new shell will not be available until the Server release.

    But the crippling DRM feature that requires me to have an MPAA approved monitor to get "premium" video quality is right on schedule.
    • by blackmonday (607916) on Friday July 15 2005, @12:00PM (#13074525) Homepage
      Seriously, for the first time ever I'm thinking that Microsoft is fucked. Compare Windows 2000 -> Windows XP. What did you get? Not a whole lot. Now it looks like Windows XP -> Longhorn isn't going to get you a whole lot either, except for more restrictions, more DRM, more lockdown. What the hell have Microsoft been doing with their (m)(b)illions of R&D money?

      Windows 2000 is plenty good for anyone these days. It's a shame, that 5 years later there's no compelling reason to upgrade.

  • by Call Me Black Cloud (616282) on Friday July 15 2005, @10:37AM (#13073509)

    From the article:
    To be fair - it's not just Microsoft. The next generation of digital content will, by and large, be protected to the display. Recently Toshiba released their HD-DVD specifications and have dictated HDMI/HDCP as a display requirement for playing back high-definition content. Most expect Blu-ray to have similar restrictions.
    You don't think Apple is going to do this too? What will happen with Linux though? With Linux making inroads into set top boxes there will be some solution for Linux, though I don't think it will make its way to the desktop (legally).
  • Well.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Solr_Flare (844465) on Friday July 15 2005, @10:37AM (#13073516)
    When DRM requires the purchase of new hardware just for things to work like they used to, then thats when it is going to turn off even the clueless consumer who normally wouldn't care. When it starts biting into people's wallets they always stand up and take notice.

    In my case, if my monitor is not "secure" enough, finding a replacement might not be so easy. My monitor is an older CRT that presents a very high quality picture. I use this because I dislike the ghosting and viewing angle issues that, while much improved from how they used to be, are still present in LCD monitors.

    The problem is that it is hard to find a decently priced, truly good CRT anymore because most of the industry is switching over to flat panel production. They literally don't make them like they used to anymore.

    I'm guessing that this technology is just geared towards people using video outs to TVs and Tivo like devices, but I really don't like the idea of being potentially forced to buy a new monitor just for an operating system. That is pretty rediculous.
  • Whats the point? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Viceice (462967) on Friday July 15 2005, @10:51AM (#13073708)
    This WHOLE thing is moot. We all know that DRM does't work and people go out of their way to avoid DRM content.

    For instance, they made ATRAC as a secure format for digital music, we all still use mp3. They made .wmv to secure online video, we use XviD. They region encoded DVDs, China starts pumping out millions upon millions of region free DVD players.

    So who wants to bet that this DRM will die still born along with the rest of the attempts to restrict media?
  • Awesome ! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FauxPasIII (75900) on Friday July 15 2005, @11:03AM (#13073853)
    What the planet really needs is more people throwing CRTs into the garbage. Way to go, Microsoft,
    for making it happen!

    If only we could charge them for the environmental damage they're going to cause. =/
  • by crazyphilman (609923) on Friday July 15 2005, @11:08AM (#13073931) Journal
    First of all, it means they've failed to put their CrapWare(tm) in the computer's firmware. Less cruft in my motherboard is a Good Thing. Not that it would have killed Linux, anyway -- the Open Source community is pretty good at working around things like that. But still.

    Second of all, this means that in order to access their movie content and so on, you'll have to have one of the "special" monitors, but the system will only work through Windows -- it's primarily a software solution which looks for the monitor feature, and fucks up the imagery if it doesn't find it. So, again, Linux remains unaffected.

    Third, if we Linux guys decided to buy something like a future game console or set-top box (we wouldn't run a Windows computer per se, of course, because we're already wonderfully served by our Linux boxen) it would probably have this built-in, and we'd be able to do what we wanted with it.

    I'd say it's not a bad idea overall.
  • by Digital_Quartz (75366) on Friday July 15 2005, @11:10AM (#13073950) Homepage
    http://www.spatz-tech.de/spatz/dvi_magic.htm [spatz-tech.de]

    Magic de-HDCPed DVI. Completely illegal in the USA thanks to the DMCA, but the rest of the world can enjoy our content at full resolution.
    • Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PepeGSay (847429) on Friday July 15 2005, @10:28AM (#13073382)
      Well... the lock on your front door isn't to keep determined criminals out. It is there to keep the average Joe from just walking in on a whim and stealing your stuff. This is the same philosophy as a lot of security mechanisms, and I don't think DRM is much different.
      • Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jonner (189691) on Friday July 15 2005, @10:42AM (#13073585)
        No, DRM is more like a padlock on a homeowner's breaker box or water heater, requiring the average, unskilled person to pay an employee of the manufacturer of the device to enable him to get electricity or hot water from his own property.
    • Re:Choices (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pete6677 (681676) on Friday July 15 2005, @10:39AM (#13073539)
      Right. Just like copyrighted broadcasts aren't shown on TV since someone could copy them. And copyrighted movies aren't released to the public on DVD. As it is, studios are just testing the waters to see how much control they can grasp from the user. If the courts consistently rule they have no right to require "broadcast flags" or whatever they are calling it now, they'll get over it and go back to doing what they've done for years: releasing content knowing that someone can copy it if they want. Some people will pirate stuff, but the content producers will keep making money because enough people will buy.
    • by Potatomasher (798018) on Friday July 15 2005, @10:46AM (#13073647)
      "If I want it to be one-peek-per-customer, that's my right, it's my content."
      Let me be the first to disagree with this comment. "Content", whether it be audio, video, art or whatever is a consumer product just like any other. Just because it is digital, does not allow the producer to decide how their product is used. DRM is setting a VERY dangerous precedent. Digital media is sort of unchartered waters for everyone at the moment. So its easy to fall in the trap, and accept these new restrictions as "normal". But what happens when similar principles start spreading to other industries ?
      Imagine this...

      Want to buy the new Harry Potter book ? Sure ! By buying the book however, you are implicitely agreeing to this EULA, which states that you cannot discuss the contents of this book (plot, characters, ending) with anyone else. After all, the author of the book would not want you to ruin the experience for everyone else. Its only fair !

      Want to buy this new GM car ? Sure. But GM is now forcing you to only buy GM branded gaz, oil, tires, etc. Oh and forget about after-market parts. It is now illegal to replace any parts of your car with non-GM sanctionned parts. After all GM made the car, they should have a right to decide how the car is used afterwards, no ?

      The new "digital media" era has no right to change the basic producer/consumer relationship which have been established in the last hundreds of years.

      Oh and you can try using your "if you dont' like it dont' buy it line". But when huge conglomerates (think sony, bmg, microsoft, etc) control both the content and HOW the content is delivered (or are in a position to influence companies), consumers don't really have a choice and lose out in the end. Do you really think that linux will ever become widespread if you can't play music and watch movies on it without breaking the law ?!

      I think we should all stop being so naive...
      • by ecklesweb (713901) on Friday July 15 2005, @12:45PM (#13075041)
        You might find it interesting to know that there are already physical -- that's right, as in not digital or content -- consumer products that attach this kind of IP bullshit. I'm a weekend woodworker when I'm not hacking, and one popular tool for make dovetail joints is the Stots TemplateMaster dovetail jig. (here's a good definition [technologystudent.com] if you don't know what a dovetail joint is) You can think of this tool as a "meta jig" - it allows you to create dovetail joint jigs of many varieties, length, etc. You then use the jigs you create to make dovetail joints.

        When you open the box, there's a neat little notice in there; they're kind enough to post it on the web - http://www.stots.com/agree.htm [stots.com]. It's even a shrink-wrap agreement:

        "Removing the seal from the product indicates your agreement to be bound by the terms of the agreement."

        Here's where they tell you that you didn't really "buy" the tool, you just bought the right to use it for a while:

        "This is a license, not a sales agreement, between you, the end user, and Stots Corporation ("Stots"). Stots grants to you a non-exclusive, non-transferable (except as provided below) license to use the Make-It-RightTM Template Master TM ("Product") attached to the agreement seal and also to the manufacturing process ("Process") described in the accompanying documentation in accord with the terms set forth in this License Agreement."

        Some of the assinine conditions:

        Want to use it in your basement AND in your garage? Tough. OR - want to lend it to a friend? Tough.

        "You may: a. use the Product (or any of the working templates produced using the Product or Process) in only one shop by the original purchaser only."

        Want to lend, not the original tool, but a jig made using the tool with the wood you bought, to a friend? Tough.

        "You may not: a. allow individuals that did not purchase the original Product use the Product or any templates produced using the Product or Process described"

        Don't like stickers on your tools? Think you might use the box for another purpose and scribble over the original grahics on the box? Tough.

        "You may not... d. remove any proprietary notices, labels, or marks on the Product, documentation, and containers"

        Say you try using it for a week and decide it's not the tool for you. Think you could just put it up for sale on eBay? Get real. Remember...

        "Stots grants to you a non-exclusive, non-transferable (except as provided below) license" (for what it's worth, the provision below says that you can transfer your rights with Stot's written permission and subject to the transferee's acceptance of the same terms and conditions you agreed to [by opening the box]).
    • Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Amoeba (55277) on Friday July 15 2005, @11:00AM (#13073826)
      So, let me get this straight. If I so chose to upgrade to Longhorn, I'd have to buy a whole new videocard and monitor to actually view the OS and any other programs tailor written for it?

      Actually, no. Only if you want to use the Secure Computing platform built in to Longhorn. This "feature" is part of Microsoft's Next-Generation Secure Computing Base. Essentially they are putting into place a framework that will provide a secure channel from keyboard to OS to monitor that runs in a protected bubble from the non-secure OS/apps/hardware. Longhorn will use a protected kernel "shell" in which DRM-enabled applications can run without interference (or being touched by) applications or non-DRM-enabled hardware running in the non-secure OS portion.

      The videocard tech they are talking about here is ostensibly to prevent things like screen-scraping or intercepting video output. The goal is to provide a secure portion of OS that is inviolate from bootup and has secured pathways for data to travel. Think of it as Uber-root or a chroot'd OS partition that include hardware.

      Using this secure channel is optional. You are not forced to use it. You can run all the aps you want, you can run it on your old hardware. However, the NGSCB is there should you need... and provided you have the hardware that supports it.

      Now, certainly this feature has the *IIA's drooling. The theory is sound but the actual use and implementation can be (and probably will be) abused.