Vista Content protection

[nslay]

This is a pretty neat, yet disturbing article...
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,135814-c,windowsbugs/article.html

It's exactly everything I imagined would happened the day I learned of DRM.  That was the same day I heard about Sony's DRM rootkit, and the same day I started looking at alternative operating systems.  I'm really disappointed in Microsoft...I've used the NT series since Windows 2000, beta tested Windows XP as well as Windows 2003 and I've seen a lot of improvement... Vista seems like a step in the wrong direction.  What happened?

DRM used to be confined to Windows, but now it is spreading to hardware and this should be concern to everyone.  The PC is an open architecture and I frankly believe this is taken for granted even by power users...What Microsoft is doing with Vista is threatening the open nature of the PC.  Hopefully open hardware will still prevail (e.g. much like USB vs Microchannel).  There are even implications of this maliciousness outside of this article, one namely comes to mind, AMD.  AMD announced it would release open graphics drivers back in May.  ATi responded that the drivers included content protection code that could not be open sourced.  There are even, now standardized, protocols for Vista to use with hardware to secure high definition content.

Quotes I find most frightening include:

"If there was any threat modeling at all, it was really badly done," Gutmann, from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, said while giving a talk on Vista content protection. "Once the enemy is the user and not the attacker, standard security thinking falls apart."

Vista requires premium content like high-definition movies to be degraded in quality when sent to high-quality outputs, so users are seeing status codes that say "graphics OPM resolution too high." Gutmann calls this "probably the most bizarre status code ever."

COMMENT:  So buying Vista is like buying a broken television?

"It's taking this open architecture that IBM created 25 years ago and making it closed again," he said.

Gutmann said hardware costs will increase because vendors can't provide Vista-approved security functionality unless Hollywood studios like MGM, 20th Century Fox and Disney grant written approval saying the content security meets their standards.

COMMENT:  Who are these corporations to dictate to Microsoft how it should treat its own customers!?

Gutmann argued that Microsoft placed content protection above all other priorities when building Vista, perhaps to gain favor and money from Hollywood. Microsoft should have instead focused this effort on security features that protect users, Gutmann said, such as encrypted paging to protect user secrets, protected content domains that keep out malware, and anti-debugging techniques to prevent rootkit hooking.

New Zealand's government, which has argued that digital rights management fails to address the rights of people and government, appears to be the only government worldwide to express public concern about Vista's content protection standards, Gutmann said.

COMMENT: I predict the US government, and others, will have to address the media's overwhelming malicious influence on computer technology.  Most people are not thiefs and they need to find a new solution to deal with pirates.

[Warrior]

This guy stated himself in his article he has never used Vista. Thanks for the speculation article however.

I'll take it with a mountain of salt.

[nslay]

This guy stated himself in his article he has never used Vista. Thanks for the speculation article however.

I'll take it with a mountain of salt.

Microsoft has admitted DRM works this way.  Microsoft has also stated that the media degredation "feature" would start in 2010.  Already there are standard content protection protocols in hardware.  Now, what happens if these content protection schemes started appearing on, say, harddrives?  Content protection schemes are not open and this would likely give Microsoft more control over the PC market.  Spend a lot of $$$ and get written permission to get the system manuals, just like the old days!

[Warrior]

Microsoft has admitted DRM works this way. 

Where? I have no doubt that DRM is bad, but I do doubt that it's to the extend outlined in the article.

Microsoft has also stated that the media degredation "feature" would start in 2010.  Already there are standard content protection protocols in hardware.

What content degradation do you speak of? From what I've read non DRMed content is degraded when it's passed over a medium where DRM is not accounted for. This is the fault of Microsoft but it's only their fault when it's passed over a medium of transfer where DRM is not accounted for in the standard (HDMI for example is not degraded automatically for non DRMed media on Vista)

Then again, the HDMI standard is not Microsoft's fault. That's Hollywood. Anyone who wishes to implement High Definition content playback via this medium is bound by the standard for implementation.

 Now, what happens if these content protection schemes started appearing on, say, harddrives? 

This is purely speculation but I'll address it anyway. Can you outline a practical application of DRM on harddrives? I don't see the comparison making sense.

Content protection schemes are not open and this would likely give Microsoft more control over the PC market. 

You're assuming that Microsoft is the only entity enforcing DRM. There are the other corporate bandits like Sony and even Apple who embrace DRM.

DRM is bad, but the article is wrong on many levels as well. The guy relies on information he aquired via his own means and left them open to his interpretations. This is not going off of his personal experience.

I'm by no means defending DRM, I'm opposed to it; atleast in the extent to which it's pushed on the consumer but I do take the time to point out the flaws in such blatantly biased articles such as this one.

[nslay]

Microsoft has admitted DRM works this way. 

Where? I have no doubt that DRM is bad, but I do doubt that it's to the extend outlined in the article.

Microsoft has also stated that the media degredation "feature" would start in 2010.  Already there are standard content protection protocols in hardware.

What content degradation do you speak of? From what I've read non DRMed content is degraded when it's passed over a medium where DRM is not accounted for. This is the fault of Microsoft but it's only their fault when it's passed over a medium of transfer where DRM is not accounted for in the standard (HDMI for example is not degraded automatically for non DRMed media on Vista)

Then again, the HDMI standard is not Microsoft's fault. That's Hollywood. Anyone who wishes to implement High Definition content playback via this medium is bound by the standard for implementation.

Any video card not supporting, for example, HDCP, isn't going to play DRM/non-DRM content at HD or at all.

 Now, what happens if these content protection schemes started appearing on, say, harddrives? 

This is purely speculation but I'll address it anyway. Can you outline a practical application of DRM on harddrives? I don't see the comparison making sense.

To deal with problems with VM and guest operating systems that implement DRM?  Presently, while Microsoft's EULA prohibits use of certain versions of Vista on VM, its still within the user's power to do so anyways.  In that sense, they could load up a VM with all kinds of DRM content and share the VM image.  I do not think its impractical (at least not as impractical as HDCP!) to fit harddrive data transfer into the DRM context.

Content protection schemes are not open and this would likely give Microsoft more control over the PC market. 

You're assuming that Microsoft is the only entity enforcing DRM. There are the other corporate bandits like Sony and even Apple who embrace DRM.

Yeah, I'm aware, and I'm also aware Microsoft's monopoly on the PC world could ultimately close the PC to the general public.  Besides, they're ultimately responsible for the idea, even implementing content protection schemes as early as Windows ME.  When I read things about AMD's ATi refusing to release open graphics drivers because content protection shemes must not go open source, thats a red light that hardware specs will not be released either!  If more and more hardware, for whatever reason, starts implementing content protection schemes, then the PC ultimately becomes a closed platform, except by the very rich corporations able to get permission and documentation.

DRM is bad, but the article is wrong on many levels as well. The guy relies on information he aquired via his own means and left them open to his interpretations. This is not going off of his personal experience.

Windows Vista provides a user experience, not a technical reference.  You seem to conclude that because Gutmann doesn't use Vista, he must not know what he's talking about regarding DRM - I disagree.  Microsoft and others plainly document the details...people like Gutmann just connect the dots.

I'm by no means defending DRM, I'm opposed to it; atleast in the extent to which it's pushed on the consumer but I do take the time to point out the flaws in such blatantly biased articles such as this one.

Ah, I see...Everything that smeres Vista is biased.  Everything that favors Vista is not.

[Warrior]

Any video card not supporting, for example, HDCP, isn't going to play DRM/non-DRM content at HD or at all.

HDCP is the standard method of DRM built into Blu-Ray and HD-DVD as well as DVDs utilizing HDMI. It's not like Microsoft invented the standard, but they are expected to implement it fully if they want Hollywood to play nice with them.

The same would hold true for say, Apple if they were to implement it. I think the blame is being pointed at the wrong company.

While I do think Microsoft has tremendous influence, I do see how this is not entirely their fault.

To find out the answer to this, you'd need to search for Microsoft's stance on DRM at a higher level. I think they're for DRM, but not in it's current implementation. This has been repeaded by Ballmer and Bill Gates on several occasions (Most predating Steve Jobs' DRM-Free publicity stunt)

To deal with problems with VM and guest operating systems that implement DRM?  Presently, while Microsoft's EULA prohibits use of certain versions of Vista on VM, its still within the user's power to do so anyways.  In that sense, they could load up a VM with all kinds of DRM content and share the VM image.  I do not think its impractical (at least not as impractical as HDCP!) to fit harddrive data transfer into the DRM context.

I don't see this as a huge problem. It's highly impractical to copy an entire VM Image (and I'm not sure, but I think with VMs files are saved locally) just for the purpose of bypassing DRM. I don't think DRM will be brought to Hard Drives as a result of this. I also see no indication that it's even in the making.

Yeah, I'm aware, and I'm also aware Microsoft's monopoly on the PC world could ultimately close the PC to the general public.  Besides, they're ultimately responsible for the idea, even implementing content protection schemes as early as Windows ME.  When I read things about AMD's ATi refusing to release open graphics drivers because content protection shemes must not go open source, thats a red light that hardware specs will not be released either!  If more and more hardware, for whatever reason, starts implementing content protection schemes, then the PC ultimately becomes a closed platform, except by the very rich corporations able to get permission and documentation.

Reading up on the history of DRM on wikipedia, it shows no indicator that Microsoft pioneered this concept. Can you cite a specific example of where they clearly start this trend?

ATi's reason is bullshit, they don't even release specs for 2D Acceleration outside of NDA (and on a good day, if they like you, and you bring them cake). There are probably secrets which Microsoft has paid for, and opening this would make that worthless. There is probably some law preventing the opening of the specifications. I doubt DRM is solely responsible for this.

Like I said, I don't agree with DRM but I also don't think it's the culprit for everything listed above. Sure it may weigh in on decisions in some cases, but I don't think it by itself has enough influence.

Windows Vista provides a user experience, not a technical reference.  You seem to conclude that because Gutmann doesn't use Vista, he must not know what he's talking about regarding DRM - I disagree.  Microsoft and others plainly document the details...people like Gutmann just connect the dots.

I believe this to be true. I mean, you shouldn't expect an avid Windows user to make a rant (whatever you want to call it) on the internals of the Content Protection subsystem without having experienced them first hand. The fact that he goes into such detail only proves he's regurgitating what he's been fed by extremists.

Ah, I see...Everything that smeres Vista is biased.  Everything that favors Vista is not.

I don't know about you but the "Vista's longest suicide note doesn't come off as an objective analysis of DRM in an Operating System (which he has never used).

[nslay]

Any video card not supporting, for example, HDCP, isn't going to play DRM/non-DRM content at HD or at all.

HDCP is the standard method of DRM built into Blu-Ray and HD-DVD as well as DVDs utilizing HDMI. It's not like Microsoft invented the standard, but they are expected to implement it fully if they want Hollywood to play nice with them.

HDCP also applies to video cards and other forms of devices that deal with "premium" content lest a techy tap into their own hardware to steal the premium content off a wire. 

The same would hold true for say, Apple if they were to implement it. I think the blame is being pointed at the wrong company.

While I do think Microsoft has tremendous influence, I do see how this is not entirely their fault.

Again, who has a monopoly on the PC market...who is largely responsible for the success of the PC?  Who influences PC hardware vendors the most?  I understand Apple has their own version of DRM...I don't see Apple taking DRM to the hardware.  This is the point of this post, expressing concern that DRM is no longer confined to Windows, but appearing in hardware. 
You're right, its the media's fault (Hollywood and recording industries), but I am disappointed that Microsoft is allowing themselves to bullied into treating their own customers as threats and thieves!

To find out the answer to this, you'd need to search for Microsoft's stance on DRM at a higher level. I think they're for DRM, but not in it's current implementation. This has been repeaded by Ballmer and Bill Gates on several occasions (Most predating Steve Jobs' DRM-Free publicity stunt)

To deal with problems with VM and guest operating systems that implement DRM?  Presently, while Microsoft's EULA prohibits use of certain versions of Vista on VM, its still within the user's power to do so anyways.  In that sense, they could load up a VM with all kinds of DRM content and share the VM image.  I do not think its impractical (at least not as impractical as HDCP!) to fit harddrive data transfer into the DRM context.

I don't see this as a huge problem. It's highly impractical to copy an entire VM Image (and I'm not sure, but I think with VMs files are saved locally) just for the purpose of bypassing DRM. I don't think DRM will be brought to Hard Drives as a result of this. I also see no indication that it's even in the making.

I have mixed feelings about its practicality - it depends how its used (e.g. using it for one media file vs thousands of media files).  Let's look at it from another perspective.  How impractical would it be for Microsoft to apply DRM to harddrive images?  Already the technology exists run various operating systems on encrypted harddrives so I don't see a fix to this problem as terribly difficult.  Or even yet another perspective...how practical is it to share a Windows Vista image vs tapping your own hardware to steal premium content by wire (which is what HDCP is meant to deal with!)?

Yeah, I'm aware, and I'm also aware Microsoft's monopoly on the PC world could ultimately close the PC to the general public.  Besides, they're ultimately responsible for the idea, even implementing content protection schemes as early as Windows ME.  When I read things about AMD's ATi refusing to release open graphics drivers because content protection shemes must not go open source, thats a red light that hardware specs will not be released either!  If more and more hardware, for whatever reason, starts implementing content protection schemes, then the PC ultimately becomes a closed platform, except by the very rich corporations able to get permission and documentation.

Reading up on the history of DRM on wikipedia, it shows no indicator that Microsoft pioneered this concept. Can you cite a specific example of where they clearly start this trend?

ATi's reason is bullshit, they don't even release specs for 2D Acceleration outside of NDA (and on a good day, if they like you, and you bring them cake). There are probably secrets which Microsoft has paid for, and opening this would make that worthless. There is probably some law preventing the opening of the specifications. I doubt DRM is solely responsible for this.

It doesn't matter if ATi's reason is bullshit...you must understand that specs on hardware that implement protection schemes cannot be released to general public.  This is the motivator for this entire discussion and you have not adequately addressed the threat of Microsoft closing most of the PC to the general public.

Like I said, I don't agree with DRM but I also don't think it's the culprit for everything listed above. Sure it may weigh in on decisions in some cases, but I don't think it by itself has enough influence.

Windows Vista provides a user experience, not a technical reference.  You seem to conclude that because Gutmann doesn't use Vista, he must not know what he's talking about regarding DRM - I disagree.  Microsoft and others plainly document the details...people like Gutmann just connect the dots.

I believe this to be true. I mean, you shouldn't expect an avid Windows user to make a rant (whatever you want to call it) on the internals of the Content Protection subsystem without having experienced them first hand. The fact that he goes into such detail only proves he's regurgitating what he's been fed by extremists.

Ah, I see...Everything that smeres Vista is biased.  Everything that favors Vista is not.

I don't know about you but the "Vista's longest suicide note doesn't come off as an objective analysis of DRM in an Operating System (which he has never used).

Yes, a list Microsoft released to the public.  Again, using Vista does not have anything to do with understanding the threat of DRM.  By comparison, reading OpenSSL's documentation can give me a feel for OpenSSL's advantages/disadvantages - this never required me to use OpenSSL.  The opinion is not the basis of the entire article and as such you cannot conclude the article is biased.  I did not see anything wrong with the article and most of the information presented is shared by ZDnet, CNet and other big name computer technology publishers.  The concerns are very real and date back to Sony's stunt.

[Warrior]

HDCP also applies to video cards and other forms of devices that deal with "premium" content lest a techy tap into their own hardware to steal the premium content off a wire. 

That's true. It only proves that Microsoft is not the only entity involved. I do think they have influence, but not against Hollywood and Hardware vendors, at least not on this topic. Not yet. DRM needs a more passive method of combat. We're making great headway with the iTunes DRM Free and other Music Libraries offering DRM free tracks. It's only going to become more mainstream. We need to show Hollywood that DRM free is profitable.

Again, who has a monopoly on the PC market...who is largely responsible for the success of the PC?  Who influences PC hardware vendors the most?  I understand Apple has their own version of DRM...I don't see Apple taking DRM to the hardware.  This is the point of this post, expressing concern that DRM is no longer confined to Windows, but appearing in hardware. 
You're right, its the media's fault (Hollywood and recording industries), but I am disappointed that Microsoft is allowing themselves to bullied into treating their own customers as threats and thieves!\

DRM moving to the hardware is just an evolutionary phase of DRM. I doubt the idea was concieved in the Microsoft camp, but I also doubt they'll be the only ones implementing the standard. I agree that they have a lot of influence, but like I outlined above, this in my opinion is not the most practical way to combat DRM. We need to change the view hollywood has on Media. We need to make them see that DRM free works, and is profitable. It's something, quite frankly that they have lost sight of.

I have mixed feelings about its practicality - it depends how its used (e.g. using it for one media file vs thousands of media files).  Let's look at it from another perspective.  How impractical would it be for Microsoft to apply DRM to harddrive images?  Already the technology exists run various operating systems on encrypted harddrives so I don't see a fix to this problem as terribly difficult.  Or even yet another perspective...how practical is it to share a Windows Vista image vs tapping your own hardware to steal premium content by wire (which is what HDCP is meant to deal with!)?

That's an interesting take on it, with things like BitLocker in the mix it may be something worth looking at so you have a point. I don't think even if they did implement it, it'd be any time soon. Definitely not in this iteration of Windows. By the time the next version of Windows is out, DRM will probably we long dead or substantially weaker. I don't see DRM lasting much longer, at least not in the terribly restrictive way we see it today.

It doesn't matter if ATi's reason is bullshit...you must understand that specs on hardware that implement protection schemes cannot be released to general public.  This is the motivator for this entire discussion and you have not adequately addressed the threat of Microsoft closing most of the PC to the general public.

If Microsoft didn't invent HDCP then how can they open it up? Unless you're talking about another area of Windows being closed.

Yes, a list Microsoft released to the public.  Again, using Vista does not have anything to do with understanding the threat of DRM.  By comparison, reading OpenSSL's documentation can give me a feel for OpenSSL's advantages/disadvantages - this never required me to use OpenSSL.  The opinion is not the basis of the entire article and as such you cannot conclude the article is biased.  I did not see anything wrong with the article and most of the information presented is shared by ZDnet, CNet and other big name computer technology publishers.  The concerns are very real and date back to Sony's stunt.

Most of the information presented has been argued back and forth, it's obviously not the entire picture and it's twisted in a biased manner to make the Premium Content subsystems seem more notorious than they really are. He draws conclusions based on no previous use (Yes, DRM has to be experienced to be understood fully.) If he's never used Vista or it's Premium Content subsystem, how can I expect him to know about which he speaks on a technical level? The article goes fairly deep into Vista's internals, and I don't see him quoting any articles or information released from Microsoft. Am I supposed to take all of his supposed factual information as such?

Surely you can see why I'm taking this with a mountain of salt.

[nslay]

HDCP also applies to video cards and other forms of devices that deal with "premium" content lest a techy tap into their own hardware to steal the premium content off a wire. 

That's true. It only proves that Microsoft is not the only entity involved. I do think they have influence, but not against Hollywood and Hardware vendors, at least not on this topic. Not yet. DRM needs a more passive method of combat. We're making great headway with the iTunes DRM Free and other Music Libraries offering DRM free tracks. It's only going to become more mainstream. We need to show Hollywood that DRM free is profitable.

Again, who has a monopoly on the PC market...who is largely responsible for the success of the PC?  Who influences PC hardware vendors the most?  I understand Apple has their own version of DRM...I don't see Apple taking DRM to the hardware.  This is the point of this post, expressing concern that DRM is no longer confined to Windows, but appearing in hardware. 
You're right, its the media's fault (Hollywood and recording industries), but I am disappointed that Microsoft is allowing themselves to bullied into treating their own customers as threats and thieves!\

DRM moving to the hardware is just an evolutionary phase of DRM. I doubt the idea was concieved in the Microsoft camp, but I also doubt they'll be the only ones implementing the standard. I agree that they have a lot of influence, but like I outlined above, this in my opinion is not the most practical way to combat DRM. We need to change the view hollywood has on Media. We need to make them see that DRM free works, and is profitable. It's something, quite frankly that they have lost sight of.

If it is evolutionary, hopefully the "evolution" stops here - hopefully business and consumer will buy (vote) wisely.

I have mixed feelings about its practicality - it depends how its used (e.g. using it for one media file vs thousands of media files).  Let's look at it from another perspective.  How impractical would it be for Microsoft to apply DRM to harddrive images?  Already the technology exists run various operating systems on encrypted harddrives so I don't see a fix to this problem as terribly difficult.  Or even yet another perspective...how practical is it to share a Windows Vista image vs tapping your own hardware to steal premium content by wire (which is what HDCP is meant to deal with!)?

That's an interesting take on it, with things like BitLocker in the mix it may be something worth looking at so you have a point. I don't think even if they did implement it, it'd be any time soon. Definitely not in this iteration of Windows. By the time the next version of Windows is out, DRM will probably we long dead or substantially weaker. I don't see DRM lasting much longer, at least not in the terribly restrictive way we see it today.

It doesn't matter if ATi's reason is bullshit...you must understand that specs on hardware that implement protection schemes cannot be released to general public.  This is the motivator for this entire discussion and you have not adequately addressed the threat of Microsoft closing most of the PC to the general public.

If Microsoft didn't invent HDCP then how can they open it up? Unless you're talking about another area of Windows being closed.

Again and again, Microsoft has influence on the PC hardware market.  By supporting DRM in hardware, Microsoft is ensuring, no matter who invented HDCP, that future hardware will also have DRM features.

Yes, a list Microsoft released to the public.  Again, using Vista does not have anything to do with understanding the threat of DRM.  By comparison, reading OpenSSL's documentation can give me a feel for OpenSSL's advantages/disadvantages - this never required me to use OpenSSL.  The opinion is not the basis of the entire article and as such you cannot conclude the article is biased.  I did not see anything wrong with the article and most of the information presented is shared by ZDnet, CNet and other big name computer technology publishers.  The concerns are very real and date back to Sony's stunt.

Most of the information presented has been argued back and forth, it's obviously not the entire picture and it's twisted in a biased manner to make the Premium Content subsystems seem more notorious than they really are. He draws conclusions based on no previous use (Yes, DRM has to be experienced to be understood fully.) If he's never used Vista or it's Premium Content subsystem, how can I expect him to know about which he speaks on a technical level? The article goes fairly deep into Vista's internals, and I don't see him quoting any articles or information released from Microsoft. Am I supposed to take all of his supposed factual information as such?

Surely you can see why I'm taking this with a mountain of salt.

Again, and again, experiencing Vista or even DRM,  does not make you kowledgeable of technical details or consequences of DRM.  If you want to really learn the technical details you have to read the documentation or reverse engineer the details - none of this amounts to your claim that you must actually use Vista to understand technical details of DRM (that doesn't even make sense).  We're not discussing how annoying DRM is to the user, we're discussing DRM on hardware ... no where does the article state anything about user perspectives of DRM; that wasn't the point of the article.

[Warrior]

If it is evolutionary, hopefully the "evolution" stops here - hopefully business and consumer will buy (vote) wisely.

I'm sure it will. Hollywood/RIAA are greedy bastards, that's a known fact. They however, are not stupid. If the majority of people really voice this discontent with DRM, then they will have to do something about it.

Again and again, Microsoft has influence on the PC hardware market.  By supporting DRM in hardware, Microsoft is ensuring, no matter who invented HDCP, that future hardware will also have DRM features.

If Microsoft DIDN'T implement the HDCP standard, the consumer would miss out on (what's mostly DRMed Media at the moment) in the form of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. Then their competitor would implement such a feature and recieve next to no bad press.

Microsoft is influential, but not nearly on the scale you're making them out to be.

Again, and again, experiencing Vista or even DRM,  does not make you kowledgeable of technical details or consequences of DRM.  If you want to really learn the technical details you have to read the documentation or reverse engineer the details - none of this amounts to your claim that you must actually use Vista to understand technical details of DRM (that doesn't even make sense).  We're not discussing how annoying DRM is to the user, we're discussing DRM on hardware ... no where does the article state anything about user perspectives of DRM; that wasn't the point of the article.

Of course it does, it goes into great detail on how content is degraded. What he fails to provide is the documentation from Microsoft from which he drew these conclusions.

Coupling this with the fact he's never booted Vista, how the hell does he expect people to believe him? He just uses loaded language and buzz words to get the headlines of gullible tech sites and blogs.

This guy is being disproved all over the Internet. He had traces of truth in his article, but it is also ridden with a bunch of lies and rants.

You may want to consider looking into this link: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=284
It contains rebuttals to small parts of his article and links to other articles which rip apart even more parts of his article.

If you take time to read the entire thing, you'll see that one by one his arguments and outrageous claims fall apart one by one.

[nslay]

If it is evolutionary, hopefully the "evolution" stops here - hopefully business and consumer will buy (vote) wisely.

I'm sure it will. Hollywood/RIAA are greedy bastards, that's a known fact. They however, are not stupid. If the majority of people really voice this discontent with DRM, then they will have to do something about it.

I would hope not ... but this may have grown out of control as it stands.

Again and again, Microsoft has influence on the PC hardware market.  By supporting DRM in hardware, Microsoft is ensuring, no matter who invented HDCP, that future hardware will also have DRM features.

If Microsoft DIDN'T implement the HDCP standard, the consumer would miss out on (what's mostly DRMed Media at the moment) in the form of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. Then their competitor would implement such a feature and recieve next to no bad press.

Microsoft is influential, but not nearly on the scale you're making them out to be.

Hollywood has substantial influence on the computer industry?  That doesn't even make sense!  No, media is moving over to computers more and more and if Microsoft chose not to propogate the monster called DRM, I am almost positive it would not be a reality for hollywood (Look Apple and others even offer non-DRM media even now).  No hardware vendor sides with you on the issue of DRM in hardware - NOT ONE!  Why do you think they are producing hardware with these standards in mind?  Hollywood?  Hell no!  Microsoft will not allow these drivers and devices on Windows unless they implement the standards.
Microsoft is the most influential computer company on the computer industry, not hollywood.

Again, and again, experiencing Vista or even DRM,  does not make you kowledgeable of technical details or consequences of DRM.  If you want to really learn the technical details you have to read the documentation or reverse engineer the details - none of this amounts to your claim that you must actually use Vista to understand technical details of DRM (that doesn't even make sense).  We're not discussing how annoying DRM is to the user, we're discussing DRM on hardware ... no where does the article state anything about user perspectives of DRM; that wasn't the point of the article.

Of course it does, it goes into great detail on how content is degraded. What he fails to provide is the documentation from Microsoft from which he drew these conclusions.

He doesn't have to.  I keep saying it...I've said it three times now!  Understanding technical details of DRM does not entail experiencing DRM!  Keep in mind, Peter Gutmann is world renowned cryptographer, he's more credible about DRM than anybody else from other fields because DRM is a cryptographic application - not a user experience!
In any case, I'd like to show you a 321 page document, from Microsoft, on Windows Logo Devices and their requirements (which is cited in his original article!).
Look at the domain! It's from Microsoft.com highlighting everything he's claimed!  And not only that, no one, as in NOBODY, from the cryptography field will side with you on DRM, even if you percieve it in a twisted way.  It's threatening cryptography research.

Coupling this with the fact he's never booted Vista, how the hell does he expect people to believe him? He just uses loaded language and buzz words to get the headlines of gullible tech sites and blogs.

Because he's an expert in cryptography!  Why do you think so many have published his claims! (which are all substantiated, and even cited, from an article he wrote called "A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection")

This guy is being disproved all over the Internet. He had traces of truth in his article, but it is also ridden with a bunch of lies and rants.

If you say so.  It seems a majority, in exception to Microsoft zealots, do not agree with you.

You may want to consider looking into this link: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=284
It contains rebuttals to small parts of his article and links to other articles which rip apart even more parts of his article.

I suggest you read the entire article Peter Gutmann wrote.

And you know what, he's so biased that he even describes ways for Microsoft to improve DRM for the user!

If you take time to read the entire thing, you'll see that one by one his arguments and outrageous claims fall apart one by one.

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.

Awesome, so he's credible about DRM because?  How does being a technology writer make him an expert about cryptography and their applications in DRM, hardware, and performance/monetary costs?  I'll read it with an open mind.  Either way, you could be right and Gutmann wrong, but I'd sooner put my money down on him than some blogger.  Over a span of time, I will personally read each and every page of that 321 page document.

[nslay]

Here's my conclusion:
Bott and Ou are the only ones attacking Gutmann's claims.  Ou's credibility has already been questioned numerous times in the user and journalist community.
All the while BBC reported Microsoft's response to Gutmann's paper and Microsoft admited many of the highlights in Gutmann's white paper.
I don't see any denial from Microsoft for any of his other claims.  This seems consistent with the fact that Gutmann's cites Microsoft's own documentation (available in the sources section of his white paper).
While it is odd that Gutmann hasn't yet released his USENIX slides yet, here's a response from him on the Gurdian (a UK newspaper):

>What's odd is that Gutmann doesn't seem to have used Vista,

I've been wondering where this interesting fact came from, because I've had it since shortly after it was released (obviously I didn't have it when I originally wrote the content-protection analysis in late 2006, since it hadn't been released yet and I wasn't about to pirate a copy). Overall it's quite nice, but I have the feeling it was released about 6-12 months too soon, particularly from the driver-support point of view. I'd guess I'm probably still using XP (or Linux) mostly, because a number of the cool toys I have don't have Vista drivers yet (that's why I was interested in the appearance of Atsiv, which I cover in the talk, since it looked like it might help with Vista driver availability).

>"There's just one little problem: Gutmann's theories are unsubstantiated and
>they're all wrong."

What he really should have said there is "My claims of what Gutmann said, which I've had to invent since I wasn't at his talk and declined his offer to see his slides, are ...".

>Ou says Gutmann's claims about CPU use have been disproven by tests at
>Anandtech,

Again, you need to make a distinction here: What George invented was disproven by tests, not what I said.

>He concluded (before some ruder updates):

You should have seen some of the private mail he's sent me :-). I actually deleted his initial message because I thought it was just crank mail.

>Peter Gutmann if you're reading this, have you even bothered to do any
>research before you make your claims?

Yup. However George has done no research whatsoever, since by his own admission in one of his articles he's admitted that he's never heard my talk and never read my slides. He's done zero research himself, and has had to invent the material he's attacking.

Quite a curious piece of, uh, "journalism" in my view.

>Seems to me that doing neither reduces his credibility to zero.

The reason I haven't released the slides yet is because it's been amusing watching the train wreck that George has built for himself by attacking material that he's never seen :-). It's also quite amazing seeing people agree with him.

Hang on, aren't you doing that too?

Peter.

Noteworthy, both Ou and Bott's article attack Gutmann's paper based on possibly coincidental personal experiences instead of from the documentation.  I don't really see any other big authors attacking his paper (e.g. like Dvorak for example).  I don't see Microsoft denying Gutmann's claims.  All I see are two windows zealots, one of which has damaged credibility, attacking a world renowned security expert.

These are worth reading:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/2007/08/15/bott_and_ou_call_out_gutmanns_vista_fud.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6286245.stm
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/5572076399A21B52CC257341000EDC26

See my previous posts for a link to his original paper. 
Some things to observe in his paper:
- Does not necessarily target Windows (see his FAQ, notice his dislike of Linux's similar GPL-only driver movement)
- Makes suggestions of how DRM could be improved
- Cites Microsoft's own documentation (which are hotlinked to Microsoft domains)

[Warrior]

I have no doubt in my mind that he has some truth in what he says, but like I said it's also ridden with a lot of ranting and uselessness. Really makes people stray from reading it, even if deep down under all the bs he is being objective.

I don't have the time (WoW :S) to go through the entire thing, but from what I saw it seemed he knew what he was saying but didnt read into it enough. From my personal experience with Vista, I don't see it impacting anyone -- at least on the scale he is proposing.

I'm going to take it with a ton of salt due to it being sensationalist in a lot of areas of the article.

[nslay]

I have no doubt in my mind that he has some truth in what he says, but like I said it's also ridden with a lot of ranting and uselessness. Really makes people stray from reading it, even if deep down under all the bs he is being objective.

I don't know if any of his claims are bs at all or not (they don't seem to be).  When I read over his paper, there were some very real concerns addressed.  Take for example driver revocation where he raises an interesting question: What happens to older hardware where a vulnerability is found?  Microsoft is supposed to revoke the driver until the vulnerability is patched - what if the company deems the hardware too old to do so?
That aside, that isn't my main concern.  I don't use Windows Vista and I don't forsee myself using it.  What concerns me is how HDMI and DRM affect the openness of PC hardware.  What does this mean to not only open source projects, but current and potential future competition in the OS and hardware industries?  How about application of the DMCA: Like say X.org reverse engineers the HFS and HDCP for various video cards, are those developers violating the DMCA?

I don't have the time (WoW :S) to go through the entire thing, but from what I saw it seemed he knew what he was saying but didnt read into it enough. From my personal experience with Vista, I don't see it impacting anyone -- at least on the scale he is proposing.

I'm going to take it with a ton of salt due to it being sensationalist in a lot of areas of the article.

I didn't notice any sensationalism.