Vista DRM

[pmonett]

In a previous thread there was a lot of discussion around DRM and content protection, and one participant specifically asked for "proof" concerning what it does.
Well Microsoft not being very helpful on the subject, at the time there was none, so the discussion ended up in the pro-MS vs anti-MS, and we all know how useful that is.
Now, however, a voice has made itself heard : that of Mr. Peter Gutmann, apparently a professor in New Zealand. Go here to read his analysis (please do, it is quite enlightning !).

Having read this article, I will summarize it thusly :
- Vista overtly disables all non-compliant interfaces when playing "protected" content, meaning S/PDIF and component video, as well as TOSlink and coax output for audio
- Vista covertly degrades the signal in a dynamic manner, so you'll never know if the fuzzyness you see on your high-end HD screen is due to a bug or to Vista content management doing its job
- the implication of content protection is that driver specifications are kept to a minmum, ensuring that open-source drivers will be few and far between
- another driver problem is that the Hardware Functionality Scan (HFS) prevents using the Unified driver models because it requires the driver to be specifically certified for the hardware - so it's back to one driver per model of graphics card or sound card
- Microsoft can apparently revoke the useability of a driver or device if it decides to, which means that all users of said element will be left in the cold until a replacement is available (at cost ?)
- Vista can now be TILTed, just like the pinball machines of old. Apparently, in order to detect hardware tampering, Vista now tracks glitches in results, buffers and signals, and when enough happen, guess what you see ?

There's more in the analysis, but I'll stop there.
Now I'm sure that some people will find perfectly reasonable arguments to justify all the above, but I'm interested in objective opinions. Doesn't all this open wide avenues for hacking ? And please don't answer that it doesn't matter because Vista "is more secure" - let's see just how secure Vista actually is in the field before giving it the laurels.
I think this whole DRM scheme will be a useability disaster. The worst case scenario would be a hacker finding out how to hijack the revocation process and actually using it.

What do you think ?

Pascal.


I've got nothing to hide, and I'd very much like to keep that away from prying eyes.

 

[Grenage]

Or KDE on something like OpenSuSe. I think that looks better than Vista, and tbh the office apps are better than MS' too.

Carlsberg don't run I.T departments, but if they did they'd probably be more fun.

 

[Sympology]

I may just do that, of course you kinda answered the problem with Linux, install umbongo then put xyz on top. Heck most people would keel over at running 2 parts to the OS. I may just do it with an older bit of kit first and work from there.

Cheers,
Stu..

Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[Grenage]

It's pretty decent now mate, the aforementioned OpenSuse gives you all the prompts while install. Give it a crack

Carlsberg don't run I.T departments, but if they did they'd probably be more fun.

 

[harebrain]

Dual booting for now it is!

Not with Vista, it isn't. The MS license prohibits using virtual OS software and, I think, more than one OS on a box. If MS doesn't prohibit dual booting, the OEM license does.

 

[Opieo]

Lol, does anyone pay attention to those though? =P

~
Give a man some fire, he will be warm for a day, Set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life.

 

[pmonett]

Frankly, I don't care what Microsoft thinks it can forbid me on my hard-earned hardware.

If I want to dual-boot, I darn well will, and I don't recognize any right to Microsoft to tell me otherwise.

It's MY hardware, and Windows is ONLY an OS, it's not an insurance policy or a contract. MS is WAYYY over its head on this one.

MS can make it difficult for companies, but MS is not going to go after individual users on this subject anyway. And as far as making things difficult for companies, I'd like to see MS try to tie IBM to one OS per PC. That would be a fine skirmish in court !

Pascal.


I've got nothing to hide, and I'd very much like to keep that away from prying eyes.

 

[Grenage]

If I want to dual-boot, I darn well will, and I don't recognize any right to Microsoft to tell me otherwise.

Yes, and no. You don't have to agree to their agreement and use the software. It's the same with most things. People complain that £15 is too much for a DVD; they don't have to buy it.

I am, however, skeptical that MS terms don't allow for a dual booting system. I've not read anything about that anywhere else.

Carlsberg don't run I.T departments, but if they did they'd probably be more fun.

 

[Sympology]

Not with Vista, it isn't. The MS license prohibits using virtual OS software and, I think, more than one OS on a box. If MS doesn't prohibit dual booting, the OEM license does.

Where does it actually say that?

I highly doubt it says that as that could easily be deemed illegal in nearly every country in the world and certainly wouldn't stand up in court.
However, they have every right to say you must license every copy. Therefore if you use a virtual server running 10 copies, you must have a seperate license for each.
You also stated that it's an OEM license (I haven't seen this), so therefore it is a simple case of software tied to a single piece of kit, i.e you "can't" use a HP OEM on a homemade box for example.


Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[MikeLacey]

Beryl looks very interesting...

People are *still*, I notice, saying that Linux will be ready/be an MS killer OS/take world by storm/etc. in "a couple of years". I am beginning to doubt that Linux, in any form will ever present anything like a serious challlenge to Apple, never mind Microsoft. Too techy, ok for me but not for my mother to install - which is my test basically.

Mike

Hardware is that part of a computer which, when you remove electrical power, doesn't go away.

Want great answers to your Tek-Tips questions? Have a look at faq219-2884

 

[benlinkknilneb]

I think you're right that it will remain a techie's OS, Mike, but I don't think there's anything they can do about it. Setting up a Linux box was no harder to me than the first time I set up a Windows box. It's the learning curve that keeps people away from making the switch. Windows offers a "security blanket" in the sense that everything operates the way people are used to... and while linux is technically no more difficult, it's just different enough that people think it's hard to use.

Ben
The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. - Douglas Adams

 

[harebrain]

Where does it actually say that? I highly doubt it says that...

In section 4 of the additional license terms:

4. Use with Virtualization Technologies. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.

Ultimate is the only version that is less restrictive in this respect.

 

[pmonett]

Linux will be ready/be an MS killer OS/take world by storm/etc. in "a couple of years"

Of course it will - in a couple of years from now ! And you'll see the effect as soon as someone has managed to find the proper value of now.

;-)

Pascal.


I've got nothing to hide, and I'd very much like to keep that away from prying eyes.

 

[Sympology]

Harebrain, although it's a bit gobbledygook, I think it translates as:

You cannot use software already licensed on one box to run another instance in a Virtual session.


I say this as it mentions a "Licensed device", i.e a licence already in use.

Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[strongm]

>I think it translates as

One would like to think so.

however, the Home and Premium licence agreements earlier specifically state:

2. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS. Before you use the software under a license, you must assign that license to one device (physical hardware system). That device is the “licensed device.”

So - given that you are not allowed to assign the licence to a virtual installation, and that you are not allowed to have a virtual installation of software that is already licenced ...

 

[pmonett]

Coming back to the original subject, ArsTechnica has an interesting article on consumer problems with DRM.

Pascal.


I've got nothing to hide, and I'd very much like to keep that away from prying eyes.

 

[Stevehewitt]

Sorry to deviate Pascal, but FYI on the Virtual front:

6. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device. If you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content or using applications protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights management services or using full volume disk drive encryption.

The EULA basically states you can't run the Home editions in a virtual environment. There's nothing stopping you from running Ultimate, Enterprise or Business thought.
Technically, you can run them all! (just not legally)

I read somewhere (can't find the source though) that the offical MS reasons for this restriction on Home is that the business/ultimate editions were throughly tested in VM, and that MS will provide support for these environment. Also something along the lines that Ultimate comprises of all components of Windows Vista, and as home users won't be using VM then MS wants developers and IT admins to test their products against the version of Vista with all the bells and whistles rather than the home editions.

Although you have to wonder - as guess which edition costs more?!




Steve.

"They have the internet on computers now!" - Homer Simpson

 

[harebrain]

Which also means that you may not use a VM OS to try to crack Vista-implemented DRM.

 

[strongm]

>crack Vista-implemented DRM

Given that it is illegal in the US and the UK (and, I'm suspect, the rest of Europe) to try and bypass content protection systems that comes as no surprise ...

 

[Sympology]

What I find ironic is that everyone here is whinging about DRM in Vista, yet many will happliy download from Apple, who have been forcing DRM upon us.
People here are saying that it was done by MS and not by Hollywood, yet why doesn't that ring true with iTunes? Job's came out and said he was forced to do it by the record companies, yet nobody believes MS have had the same pressure placed upon them. If job's was really fopr the people, he's turn round and say "You remove DRM or iTunes doesn't sell your content!. But he won't why? Too much money involved. That's the really issue here, Corporations battling each other and the cunsumer losing out.
Odd how clever image marketing works isn't it?

Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[Grenage]

yet why doesn't that ring true with iTunes?

It does.

Carlsberg don't run I.T departments, but if they did they'd probably be more fun.