Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Showing results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection

  1. #11
    Experienced User
    estimablesir's Avatar
    Join Date
    09.01.2005
    Posts
    246

    Default

    I never said I read the whole thing, I skimmed through it. Here's what most people don't understand because they're too busy blaming Microsoft for everything:

    With respect to the HD content being downsampled UNLESS you have an HDCP compliant video card. That isn't Microsoft's choice, that's a standard dictated by the movie industry. They want encryption of the HD signal END TO END...so the choice is this. Either Microsoft complies, or he doesn't fully support the new HD formats. Yeah...sucks doesn't it. Read this article. Microsoft isn't really such a bad guy out to alienate the people willing to make the company money.

    This guy says it all in that vista forum I posted

    "Microsoft had no other ways to implement HDCP on windows without adding that DRM mess. And obviously in the living-room battle against Apple it would have been a bad idea for them to not include hd-dvd and blu-ray playback."

    Blame the MPAA and RIAA for pushing DRM filth onto your computer, not Microsoft.

    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060214-6177.html
    Last edited by estimablesir : 23.02.2007 at 18:46

  2. #12
    User
    lmgava's Avatar
    Join Date
    07.10.2005
    Posts
    69

    Default

    >>Blame the MPAA and RIAA for pushing DRM filth onto your >>computer, not Microsoft.

    They don't write software, and they don't make hardware.
    The sell songs and movies. But they are trying to bend the world to their needs.

    I prefer to blame every one taking part in this that's bending to 90 degrees to them, not only them.


    -----------------------------------------------------
    Microsoft is only doing this because Hollywood/the music industry is forcing them to.

    We were only following orders has historically worked rather poorly as an excuse, and it doesn't work too well here either. This could also be taken as an example of the Dank defence. The Dank defence, as reported by former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Grosso, was used by someone who was picked up carrying a shotgun in a park at night. With six previous violent crime convictions on his record, he explained his presence in the park by saying that a man called "Dank" had held a gun to his head and forced him to carry the shotgun. When the police turned up, "Dank" ran away, leaving him holding the bag (or at least the shotgun). As the Assistant U.S. Attorney puts it, "the jurors chose not to believe the defendant's story". In Vista's case, we're being asked to believe that Hollywood is holding a gun to Microsoft's head and forcing them to cripple their flagship product and inflict all manner of pain on their business partners and customers, and Microsoft has no choice but to comply.

    I choose not to believe the defendant's story. While it's convenient to paint an industry that sues 12-year-old children, grandmothers, families with no computer or Internet access, and even tries to sue the dead, as the scapegoat, there's no Dank holding a gun to Microsoft's head to force them do this. The content industry is desperate to get its content onto PCs, and it would have been quite easy for Microsoft to say Here's what we'll do with Vista, take it or leave it. We won't seriously cripple our own and our business partners' products just to suit your whims. In other words they could make it clear to Hollywood who's the tail and who's the dog.

    Here's an illustrative story about what can happen when the content-industry tail tries to wag the dog. About 10-15 years ago, music companies told a bunch of NZ TV stations that they had to pay fees in order to screen music videos. The TV stations disagreed, saying that they were providing free advertising for the music companies, and if they didn't like that then they'd simply stop playing music videos. So they stopped playing all music videos.

    After a few weeks, cracks stated to appear as the music companies realised just how badly they needed the TV channels. One of the music companies bought an entire prime-time advertising block (at phenomenal cost, this wasn't a single 30-second slot but every slot in an entire prime-time ad break) just to play one single new music video.

    Shortly afterwards, music videos reappeared on TV. The details of the settlement were never made public, but I imagine it consisted of a bunch of music company execs on their knees begging the TV stations to start playing music videos again and let's please never bring this matter up again.

    It's the same with Microsoft, the content industry needs them as badly (or more badly) than Microsoft needs the content industry. Claiming that they're only following orders from Hollywood is a red herring if Microsoft declined to implement this stuff, Hollywood would have to give in because they can't afford to lock themselves out of 95% of the market, in the same way that the music companies couldn't afford to cut out their primary advertising channel. The more likely motivations for why Microsoft is doing this are given in the Final Thoughts section (link here)

    http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00....html#thoughts

  3. #13
    Experienced User
    estimablesir's Avatar
    Join Date
    09.01.2005
    Posts
    246

    Default

    The RIAA and the MPAA would glady cut off their own foot rather then fold like a cheap camera, even if Microsoft decided not to support their DRM infected content. They've been slicing limbs off ever since they began suing individuals.
    There would be no sense in Microsoft fighting DRM, because he knows most consumers don't even know what DRM is. DRM is part of the BluRay/HD specification. Most people are going to be playing Blu Ray and HD Discs on their TVs, not on their computers. Meaning, Organizations like the MPAA choose which platforms they will market their products to. Platforms, that will of course, support DRM. They couldn't care any less if they alienated PC users. They wouldn't relinquish their DRM because Microsoft choose not support it.

    Remember that big organizations are customers too, and if they want a platform designed to support DRM, Microsoft will do it.

  4. #14
    Experienced User

    Join Date
    06.12.2005
    Posts
    191

    Default

    More info about DRM.
    Code:
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=429#
    Mejor morir de pie, que no vivir de rodillas.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •