Longhorn to Require Monitor-Based DRM 1266
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."
extreme case of DRM (Score:5, Interesting)
Another reason why Tiger and Leopard makes Longhorn look long-in-the-tooth ^^
Re:in related news (Score:5, Interesting)
---
I'm actually just a script.
Generated by SlashdotRndSig [snop.com] via GreaseMonkey [mozdev.org]
Will it stop a semi-serious pirate? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Hard to believe (Score:3, Interesting)
I know it's not "just Microsoft", but really - Microsoft can't afford to have the bad press this will generate.
Well.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Hm... third party bypasser... (Score:2, Interesting)
PC BlackBox Monitor
PC asks BlackBox - "Are you on opium?"
BlackBox reply - "Sure am, dude."
PC gives BlackBox on-restricted content.
BlackBox gives Monitor onrestricted content.
Hm...
1. Microsoft shell out Longhorn.
2. Foreign country (*cough*TaiwanChinaKorea*cough*) produces BlackBoxes(tm).
3. Opium bypassed.
4. ???? (maybe laugh in their face)
5. PROFIT (for foreign countries).
Illegal to watch movies on Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
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:4, Interesting)
Don't worry about your PC monitor... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:ummmm (Score:2, Interesting)
The Microsoft link claims this is to protect you from hardware attacks. If I understand correctly, there is a concern that someone could write a hardware virus that would change the screen resolution from 640x480 to 1280x1024 multiple times each second. It is expected that this could physically damage the monitor.
But if the monitor is authenticated at both resolutions, then it seems the PVP-OPM would not stop the attack. So I don't really see any protection here.
I RTFA, and while the author doesn't actually say much, it seems to me that the point of this is to discourage someone from ripping a DVD and watching it on their computer. This is assuming that their video card won't do DVD resolution.
At the risk of being modded redundant, this is yet another DRM idea that will have no effect on the people it is intended to stop, and will inconvenience everyone else.
First Virus to take advantage of this... (Score:2, Interesting)
Licensing the content or selling a product? (Score:4, Interesting)
Under this scheme, though, you are screwed by the time you get to see what services are out there. You buy Longhorn, you've just given control of your machine to more than content producers. You've handed control of your machine to a third party - be it Hi-Def content producers or Microsoft itself. You've given someone else the right to redefine *your* rights under copyright law and to control to which materials you even have access - now DRM becomes censorship.
This may not be how DRM starts out but it certainly is where it *can* lead.
What about my right to make a backup of digital content I've licensed for viewing? My DVD collection is a prime example - Jack Valenti once said something akin to "digital lasts forever" but the only reason that is even remotely true is because I can find a copy of every movie I own online and burn a copy if I chose. It certainly is not because DVDs last forever - a few scratches (and if you have young children in the house this is very easily done) and you are done.
This has been said before but I'll say it again because it is appropriate: content producers need to decide: are you licensing content or are you selling a product? If you are licensing content then you are telling me to what limits I can use your content - the medium upon which I place your content should not matter. If you are selling a product, then I can do whatever I want with the product as long as I do not violate the copyrights upon the content.
Remember, among your rights as a consumer are the rights to time- and space-shift the content you are entitled to possess (be it via explicit relationship defined by the exchange of money for goods and services or be it via the implied relationship defined by trading your time and eyeballs watching advertisements).
In general, as a software developer and an individual who would like to make a living as a writer someday, I understand the debate over intellectual property/copyright and DRM. I understand why content producers are concerned. However, you cannot have it both ways. DRM tries to let the content producers usurp or otherwise limit *your* rights in favor of their own and that is a very bad thing.
Re:*sigh* (Score:3, Interesting)
But the world isn't black and white like that with honest people and thieves and nothing in between.
Especially with electronic material such as software and content where "stealing" doesn't "feel" so wrong as pocketing something in a store (I mean it's just bits right).
If Adobe allowed you to download a full non-expiring version of PhotoShop and just put a notice on there "Remember to send us $499 if you keep using this product after 30 days to keep your copy legal" don't you think the number of illegal copies would be much higher than it is today?
So what they're doing is making it sufficiently cumbersome for the average Joe to get around the DRM that they just decide to spend the $1 on the song or the $20 on the DVD or whatever instead.
Don't whine at Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
This wouldn't be an issue if we didn't have paranoid movie companies.
Personally, I think it's a matter of who's developing the support -- just like Longhorn will indirectly support movie piracy like Windows XP does by not preventing it, it will supporting this technology. If Microsoft wouldn't, the movie companies would probably develop software for it instead.
Actually, just like Linus isn't against DRM in Linux [com.com], I bet he doesn't have problems with this support becoming a part of the Linux kernel in the future either, which is actually just another one in the long line of DRM technologies. At least I can't see a reason to why he with his stance of allowing anyone to use Linux for anything you want to, including watching protected content, would change that stance now.
Re:RTA: It's not just Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
Awesome ! (Score:5, Interesting)
for making it happen!
If only we could charge them for the environmental damage they're going to cause. =/
Re:Outstanding (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000230050640/ [engadget.com]
Not software, perhaps, but it will get the job done.
Re:What this means is (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Cost/benefit (Score:3, Interesting)
People aren't going to stop buying Madden no matter what EA does because they like Madden, and anyway, there's stuff going into their purchase decision besides just what EA does.
But a monitor? People have no attachments to monitors. They're pretty much interchangeable, as are many PC parts, from the average apathetic consumer's perspective. You can't get someone to stop buying Britney Spears CDs because there's no way you'll be able to get them to look at the britney spears cd and see just the RIAA tactics that produced it. But, you can get them to look at this monitor or that monitor and just see the DRM. And you can do this because really, other than the DRM, what distinguishing features does the monitor have?
I don't think it's just apathy. Buying different music requires sacrifices. Buying different commodity PC parts does not require sacrifices.
[theInq] Linux excluded from Intel + Microsoft DRM (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24638 [theinquirer.net]
Intel to cut Linux out of the content market
Comment East Fork off key
By Charlie Demerjian: Friday 15 July 2005, 10:01
INTEL IS ABOUT TO CUT Linux out of the legitimate content market, and hand the keys to the future of digital media to Microsoft at your expense. Don't like it? Tough, you are screwed. The vehicle to do this is called East Fork, the upcoming and regrettable Intel digital media 'platform'. The funny part is that the scheme is already a failure, but it will hurt you as it thrashes before it dies. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Microsofts fault? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Outstanding (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Outstanding (Score:2, Interesting)
Its too technical and abstract for TV Viewers (Score:2, Interesting)
Where was the uprising over commercial skip features in ReplayTV? What about the broadcast flag?
These "security features" will be slipped in, with people unaware, until they want to do something that is not allowed (like skipping previews on DVDs). Then they will be stuck with it, and may very well accept it as "how things are."
Re:The Solution without a Problem... (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Outstanding (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone buys CDs. Only Pirates (and possibly Ninjas) copy CDs for the illegal purpose of distribution. So Microsoft introduced DRM to Media Player. After all, only a few geeks would notice the limitations and the vast majority would never notice as they simply ripped CDs to their PC and were happy with it.
Only so many people refused to use Media Player, refused to convert to WMA, refused to thus buy WMA supported portable media players, that Microsoft had to rethink and rethink fast.
Now Media Player comes with a config option to turn off DRM if it doesn't suit you. And Microsoft lost the war (or at least five years of it) to MP3, WinAmp, iTunes and iPods.
The truth is that the average Joe does care. Most probably don't really care that much about being able to put files up on Kazaa - but they do care about being able to rip their DVD to the PC then copy that file to their laptop and from there to their portable video player. They want to simply enjoy their content, maybe copy off to their TiVo or take a copy on the road - nothing special - and systems that prevent that will frustrate them.
My guess is that we'll see history repeat itself. The hardcore crowd will hate it but they're such a minority that it doesn't matter. The real issue will be the mainstream. That 10% who use Firefox, the ones who'll move over to MP3 instead of WMA in order to simply do what they legally want. They won't be the majority but they don't have to be. All it takes is a healthy enough minority and Microsoft's monopoly is threatened. To Microsoft's way of thinking, unless they can squeeze every other competitor out, they can't build their next round on top of this round's assumptions. And so, quietly, Microsoft will capitulate just like they did on Media Player - and add an option to disable this ridiculousness in order to get their monopoly back.
It's a balancing act. Microsoft want their monopoly. To do that, they need the content produced in their format. To encourage that, they have to pander to the content producers. The problem is when most content producers are home users ripping their DVDs. At that point no one uses their player and so, whether corporate producers love the DRM or not, they're not going to waste money on a format no one views. Thus pandering to the producers matters somewhat but not exclusively.
Re:Outstanding (Score:3, Interesting)
Please, Microsoft, leave maintenence to the users. It's why I have a job. So:
1. Don't take my ability to use my current monitor away from me.
2. Don't take my gaming performance away from me by defragging my drive all the fucking time.
3. Don't take my paycheck away from me.
Re:But will it run ____? (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft is going to please content providers with this feature but they are putting themselves on the lossing side of a major consumer battle. Seems to be a bad business move to me.
Re:Outstanding (Score:2, Interesting)
Now that I don't play PC games, there's no reason for me to own a PC. My powerbook does everything and more.
Anyone can use whatever they want, and I don't care, but I won't be going back the way of MS unless there's something that will make me want to switch. That doesn't seem to be happening yet.
Re:Outstanding (Score:2, Interesting)
Your average consumer does not actually care. It may seem as though they do, because on every purchase they do not understand, they consult a geek friend that does care. And we, the geeks that care, tell our friends to avoid DRM like the plague. And we do this not just because DRM is pointless, but because will be the ones that have to field informal support calls about why the MP3s that work in their old player won't play on their new iPod.
Heck, it's even getting to the point where people are asking me what television they should buy, just because they heard they need a digital TV by 2005.
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have an observation ... *EVERY* MS OS has had something in it that people thought was going to be the end of the world. And in the end MS backed down or *NOBODY ADOPTED IT*. Im fairly certain that stuff will happen here.
MS needs hardware vendors more than ever. (Score:4, Interesting)
If Longhorn is a bloated mess and comes with utter sillyness such as "monitor DRM" that requires you to buy a new monitor (remember the MS keyboard? Keyboard manufacturers were crawling up MS' ass to be able to build and sell them) then the hardware vendors will hail Longhorn as the best OS ever. And be happy to sell you the great hardware you need to honor this OS.
That's what this is all about.
I hope they screw this one up.
Re:Outstanding (Score:3, Interesting)
Today's amateurs are tomorrow's experts. By locking up all the content and tools these amateurs need, they are alienating their future talent/customer/worker/etc. pool, this is never good but they will not feel the real damage for another 20+ years - when they will be forced to hire people who had to progress in a locked-up world.
This sucks but that is how they want it, all in the good name of short-term profits.
Re:Outstanding (Score:3, Interesting)
There in lies the real problem with this kind of down-rezing DRM. If "good enough" is what the system lets out "unprotected" then people will pirate that and, by definition, it will be good enough for most people.
Kind of the way all that super-duper copy-protection on dvd-audio and sacd is useless. When 99% of the market thinks mp3-quality is "good enough" then that's what they will pirate. Nobody pirates the hi-res audio, not because of the copy-prevention, but because nobody cares about hi-res. (And I say this as an owner of both dvd-audio and sacd discs)