Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Showing results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection

  1. #1
    User
    lmgava's Avatar
    Join Date
    07.10.2005
    Posts
    69

    Default A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection

    Two hours well spent on reading this.

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

  2. #2

    Default

    thank you !

  3. #3
    Experienced User
    estimablesir's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.01.2005
    Posts
    246

    Default

    I don't understand the video playback quality degradation. What does it mean that it degrades quality of video playback when "premium" content is present.

    If I'm not misinterpreting it, doesn't that apply only to DRM protected content? So far I've been very satisfied with Vista which runs beautifully on my machine.

    In terms of "cost", any modern PC can run vista. A modern OS for modern computers.
    Last edited by estimablesir : 16.02.2007 at 21:21

  4. #4
    User
    lmgava's Avatar
    Join Date
    07.10.2005
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by estimablesir View Post
    I don't understand the video playback quality degradation. What does it mean that it degrades quality of video playback when "premium" content is present.
    If I'm not misinterpreting it, doesn't that apply only to DRM protected content?
    The idea of MS is ALL content will be premium content.
    One step at a time.

    "Protecting all of this precious premium content requires a lot of additional technology. Unfortunately much of this is owned by third parties and requires additional licensing. For example HDCP for HDMI is owned by Intel, so in order to send a signal over HDMI you have to pay royalties to Intel, even though you
    could do exactly the same thing for free over DVI (actually you could do it better, since DVI is provides a higher-quality link than HDMI)."

    "So if you're using an expensive new LCD display fed from a high-quality DVI signal on your video card and there's protected content present, the picture you're going to see will be, as the spec puts it, slightly fuzzy, a bit like a 10-year-old CRT monitor that you picked up for $2 at a yard sale "

    So you have a nice DVI out on your GeForce 8800 Extra Plus Platinum Overclocked Edition capable of 1600x1200.

    You have a 100 inches LCD display capable of 1600 x 1200.

    You connect both through DVI, trying to see the "premium content" you have *bought*.

    You'll see a rescaled 800x600 image (or something like that), because Vista doesn't trust you, your DVI-D, 15-pin D-Sub, S- Video, and component video connectors.

    Your HW would be capable of do what you have paid it for, but Vista won't let it.

    Useless upgrade time. Until some policy change again.

    Maybe with a service pack.

    Or maybe because your video driver is caught leaking premium content.

    Quote Originally Posted by estimablesir View Post
    So far I've been very satisfied with Vista which runs beautifully on my machine.
    Yes, that's the problem. Looking after today.
    The article is talking of the (not so hidden) probable tomorrow.
    It's in place.

    Quote Originally Posted by estimablesir View Post
    In terms of "cost", any modern PC can run vista. A modern OS for modern computers.
    I rest my case.
    Good luck.
    To me (us, the others) too.
    Last edited by lmgava : 16.02.2007 at 22:09

  5. #5
    User
    lmgava's Avatar
    Join Date
    07.10.2005
    Posts
    69

    Default

    And this is only the tip of the iceberg, it's only what will be possible in software.

    If the trusted computing concept will pass with its hardware implementations, there is no limit to how they could fuck up your brain.

    http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

    The incedible thing, the most dreadful, is HOW the content industry is influencing, guiding, BENDING the technological development.

    Most of the decisions doesn't have technical merit.

    Quite the opposite. They are technical nonsense. But are the most lucrative for a small group of people.

    But, hey, it's for your security.

    Bend.

  6. #6
    Experienced User
    estimablesir's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.01.2005
    Posts
    246

    Default

    we shall see. As long as my x264 encodes look good, and they do on vista, even to my picky eyes... I'll be satisfied. There will always be ways around things.

    I don't believe the image is resized, it does something even worse. With premium content, Vista downsamples, and then upconverts the signal making it look like crap. We'll see if the tech savvy community will tolerate that.
    Last edited by estimablesir : 16.02.2007 at 23:15

  7. #7
    Experienced User
    Kinlaadare's Avatar
    Join Date
    24.05.2005
    Posts
    697

    Default

    I do hope so... there will be solutions to get round that sh**.
    Trusted computer. Yeah! Who trust who? Me trust my computer? Not with a little protections outside it. And now my own computer doesn't trust me anymore. bah!

    This is what they call trusted computing.
    Carpe diem

  8. #8

    Default

    AI at its best..

  9. #9
    Experienced User
    estimablesir's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.01.2005
    Posts
    246

    Default

    here is a detailed rebuttal of that article
    http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...d-answers.aspx

  10. #10
    User
    lmgava's Avatar
    Join Date
    07.10.2005
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by estimablesir View Post
    here is a detailed rebuttal of that article
    http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...d-answers.aspx
    Ergh, maybe you didn't read THAT article, after all.

    It was already linked there.

    "In mid-January 2007, Microsoft responded to some of the points in this writeup. Some of the material was new and interesting (for example clarifying just what actually gets revoked when a driver revocation occurs), other parts seem more likely to have come from Waggener Edstrom (Microsoft's PR firm) than Program Manager Dave Marsh (The Inquirer wasn't too impressed by it either). I've updated the body text based on some of the clarifications, but for things that aren't directly relevant to the main text (which means the PR-spin items) I'll comment on them here. The important technical clarifications that affected the main body of the writeup are (1) exactly what happens when a driver is revoked, (2) what happens when a tilt bit triggers, and (3) which portions of the output are affected when content degradation takes place. The content-protection specifications were previously somewhat unclear about these various consequences of the protection mechanisms, so it's good to have this clarification on exactly what occurs.

    Since the portions that I'll comment on here are PR-related rather than technical content, the following section is an attempt to respond directly and try and unravel the PR spin. The technical comments have been integrated into the main body of the writeup."

    Continue in the article.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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
  •