http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/ Engadget Comments for Microsoft responds to the OPM controversy http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/
I can see it now, no one buys it so MS decides to invalidate XP activation worldwide.. muahaha .. "System message: You have 30 days to buy Vista, would you like to order online now?"]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/
At the end of the day, it's their platform and they want to give you the ability to play the content you pay for.

Chris]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/
Chris]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/
No way am I going to buy new monitors, new video card just use Vista. XP works fine for me.]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/
Some 3rd party hardware company step up and create an adapter that would fool the OPM and allow the end users to bypass this idiocy. This way, we can all stick it to Microsoft for being such jagoff pussies. Fuck you, Microsoft. Don't pretend you give a shit about us, the end users. All you really care about is making dollars from anyone who will give it to you.

By the way, how much DID they pay you to stick it up all of our asses? I hope it was a lot, you douche-bag fuckers. I hope it was so much that you choke on it and die.]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/
For the history impaired:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_wars]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/
Instead of researching alternatives methods and such, they're buying into the generic business strategy of late, which is to just use a pseudo-secure hardware protocol to carry their precious data into the arms of the intended device and out of the hands of dreaded Intellectual Property Terrorists who will stop at nothing to steal and scalp their content to the masses on the corporate dime. Worse yet, people are going to circumvent this and it's just a matter of time, and they everyone knows it. Worser still, since it's a hardware measure, it's a lot harder for us to upgrade it cheaply when it's done in.

Now, I wouldn't take such issue with all this if all MS would allow to take place is the scaling-back of the picture on a VGA CRT moniter that will likely never be capable of HD. However, the fact that they allow this to happen on so-called "unprotected" HD displays strikes me as rather criminal. Imagine that, for just a second, that you are not the super-literate computer-born youth of this era, but the semi-literate television- or even radio-born elderly; you're kinda familiar with HD and all like that, so you go and buy yourself a nice, new HD moniter on which the manufactuerer has neglected to add "protection" to save some money. Now, you buy a shiny, new computer with the shiny, new MS OS that you've trusted since forever. All it can give you is a couple of dumb words in place of an apology or actual recommendation or even compensation. Worse yet, it reserves the right to now decimate the picture quality you have paid for. In fact, better yet, if the provider is so inclined, you don't even get that.

That's right, their thinking is that, the choice cannot possibly be yours. I mean, you've only shelled out all of the cash for this investment, why should you be at all involved in its complete operation? Why shouldn't the humble software provider, instead, be responsible for how _your_ hardware operates? Let's face it, here in the US, we individuals have always been paranoid about leaving anything involving our best interests to anyone else. As a small measure of compensation, at least, WE could get to choose what happens to our picture. But that wouldn't make it emascualtion would it? I mean, if you were given the choice between something and nothing, no one would likely choose nothing, and so, people would always go with the downsampling, making it a matter of no choice, really. Still, this matter is seen as choice FOR SOMEONE ELSE, at your cost.

And that, my friends, is why I see danger in even this small measure. I'll admit, I've pirated my share of media, but to be honest, this, for me, isn't about piracy; this is all about a loss of control of the stuff I have paid for. In a capitalistic society, really, that's all anybody has; control of their own property.]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/
I applaud DRM. But there will be a period of adjustment while content providers figure out just where to place the slider. If you oppose DRM, then simply don't buy content that employs it. The market will determine whether or not it is successful.]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/
(Yes, I know I'm repeating myself. Repeat the same question and I'll repeat the same answer...)]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/
This is really a two-pronged issue, if you think about it; this is an issue of consumer rights (on which we are being given 'the finger' and no phone call) and of technological development.

I mean, say what you like (because you will) but this is another example of MS trying to impose its will upon the hardware industry and to force it to develop in the direction it sees fit. That would mean that the software provider would suddenly become the dictator of hardware development and having been educated in software design, I must concede that we software guys ARE NOT normally taught, in-depth, about hardware and often do not keep up on all the micro-facets of hardware development. So, I don't that's a very effective model. Likewise, an equally ineffective model is presented by those who say that the hardware should solely dictate the scope of software; the only really nice, effective model comes about when hardware and software people come together under a mutual tune. So far, the realm of HD computing had been somewhat undecided but for such a move to just come down dictate the day is somewhat ridiculous.]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/
This is really a two-pronged issue, if you think about it; this is an issue of consumer rights (on which we are being given 'the finger' and no phone call) and of technological development.

I mean, say what you like (because you will) but this is another example of MS trying to impose its will upon the hardware industry and to force it to develop in the direction it sees fit. That would mean that the software provider would suddenly become the dictator of hardware development and having been educated in software design, I must concede that we software guys ARE NOT normally taught, in-depth, about hardware and often do not keep up on all the micro-facets of hardware development. So, I don't that's a very effective model. Likewise, an equally ineffective model is presented by those who say that the hardware should solely dictate the scope of software; the only really nice, effective model comes about when hardware and software people come together under a mutual tune. So far, the realm of HD computing had been somewhat undecided but for such a move to just come down dictate the day is somewhat ridiculous.]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/
#13 Falsoman: If you’re interested in purchasing a new display anyway, just wait until we get more displays with HDCP/HDMI. If Vista and other protected content comes before you purchase a new display, your current E400 will still be able to display the content, just most likely not at full resolution.

#15 Jasper: Microsoft is trying to provide the user with more practical ways of using the media they purchase. With Microsoft as one of the founders of the AACS (content protection system for HD-DVD and likely for Blu-Ray) they wanted to try and persuade the content owners (MPAA) and CE companies that they could allow playback and transfer of this new content on our PCs and bring a host of new (legal) experiences to the user. I would consider this on the path to "suitable copyright".

---

It's very easy to blame Microsoft for taking your rights away with technologies like PVP-OPM, but understand it doesn't take anything away from you, it enables you to do new things with your media. Without it, you simply can't do those new things on your PC.

If you have no interest in playing/capturing protected content, PVP-OPM is nothing for you to even think about. Your current monitor isn't going to stop working; and you’re not going to lose rights you have now.

If you’re interested in playing next-gen content, a secure system must be enabled to please the developers of the content protection systems (if you don’t they will not give you the right to ship it!). It's rather clear they would rather not have another DeCSS case happen, so they up the level of the protection. Microsoft wants you to still be able to play that content on your PC, thus must develop the framework to allow it (or PC users can't enjoy the content using a PC!)

Chris]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/
Just curious.]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/
If MS didn't make this move, they'd still wind up serving up content because, otherwise, they would lose the PC market, which no one can afford to lose nowadays. In fact, I'll bet you that after all this, it still takes years for them to seriously invest in any computer-based HD solutions; that is, they won't make any PC-based distribution system for HD content such as movies by any new means. Sure, you'll be able to pop a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD (which is MS's pet-standard, now) into your PC and indulge in that and for that, I can understand the deal with HDCP and the like.

However, they don't give us options, they don't make a big announcement out of this, they don't give US the choice. It's gonna be HDCP or bust and if you don't have HDCP on the time of and on the day of, you lose. It's no longer your choice to enjoy any given content, it's their choice. They get to say, 'hey, if we really want, we can just give you a blank screen and nothing else.'

In the very least, for our monatary investments, we should get to choose to watch downsampled, luckless content. Again, it's a big statment they've posed to us in very subtle language. It's not: You can get content but downsampled to standard definition like just any display can get; it's: you can have what someone else decides you can have. That's important in an age of emerging DRM strategies and the TCP; this gives us an indication of company policy and it seems to be one which regards the end-user as the enemy.

Maybe it would ease piracy, for just a second, if people didn't feel so much like they were always getting suspicious glances from the comapanies who are supposed to be our friends.

In fact, if you had a friend who presumed you were a blabbermouth with no proof, you'd be miffed. If then, this friend read aloud to you because you could not read but would not read to you, anything, from a certain book because he felt afraid that, in reading it to you, you would tell everyone its story and ruin the experience for everyone or inhibit that book's sales with your amazing story-telling ability, you'd be pissed.

Now, that example was both circuitous and humorous, sarcastic, if you will. I don't think any real valid parallels can be drawn from this to that, but still, the gist of the message is this: you can't be trusted with even a downsampled version, if you refuse. That's totally strong-arm.

It's not like MS sat down with everyone and said, "Well, hey, we have a problem and we should definitely come up with a solution for this one..." They're just shamelessly imposing their own coporate will.

But, in closing, I have no fear of any of this. The unsinkable Titanic sunk, the uncrackable XP was cracked before it was even publicly released, this will go the way of the inconsequentiality.]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/
MCE 2005 has HDTV in the form of ATSC only... there would be some room of support for unencrypted QAM 256 if BDA drivers were written, but you still wouldn't have access to pay channels like HBO-HD or ESPN-HD.

The obvious way to make this happen, is for someone to make a DCR or Cable Card (well card) for a PC, but this is going to be blocked by content providers because of the open architecture of the PC. The solution is, if the OS can ensure that the channel is encrypted from the card to the display, then it will pave the way for DCR support.

Even for someone who runs MythTV, OPM on a PC is something that we want. Otherwise we will be restricted to the DVR that cable companies provide or those from closed systems like TiVO. OPM is a matter of choice. Either we allow it to go through, or we suffer the consequences in the future. At least with OPM there will be an opportunity to still add innovative features to DVR's.]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/
They would not be able to allow playback without a system like this, that's why they are developing it. It doesn't take any of your freedoms away in order to gain security, you don't have the freedom to play the content now! They didn't take it away, they are trying to give it to you!

It will be cracked, but that's the reason for renewability and revocation.

Again, this is all about enabling you (the person who buys the content, the person who buys the OS, etc) the play the content. You don't have the ability to do that as it is today, and Microsoft wants you to be able to. Thus, PVP-OPM in Vista

Chris]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/
Because, of course, there was no legitimate content before DRM. No books, or records, or music existed...

Except, of course, they did. And that's a scare tactic used to push this on people: "If you don't give up your rights, we won't make any content any more!" It's a lie. If the market is there, they'll make content. They didn't stop making music when Napster became popular. The companies will keep making content, because there will still be a market for it. They're not going to just close up shop ("Well, no DRM in monitors! Guess we'll just fire everyone and go raise pigs instead... I never liked being a movie producer anyway.")]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/
I've used FairKeys to unencrypt iTunes songs. I've used Dr. Divx to unencrypt TivoToGo files. THAT is what content producers should be worried about: software which can take their pristine all digital content and remove its protections. OPM won't stop that kind of piracy.

Content protection suffers from the flaw that if it can be used, it can be copied by analog means. If I can see the text of a book, I can transcribe it by hand. If I can hear a song, I can record it. If I can see a movie, I can set up my video camera to capture it. OPM doesn't stop that kind of piracy either.

Let's say I'm a movie pirate. I go out and buy myself an OPM display, set up my high-def camera to capture the movie, and in 90 minutes, I have me an unprotected high definition movie, ready to distribute. I've played by the rules, and still pirated the content. OPM just plain can't stop me.

Come to think of it, OPM isn't able to stop very much piracy at all.


**********************

Sort of off topic here, but I think the studios are dead wrong about what consumers want. COntent trumps quality any day. It may be high definition, but if the movie is shit, no one will buy it. There's a reason iPods are more popular than DVD-Audio players: the content, i.e. 10,000 songs at okish quality, is more important than the quality, 15ish songs at wonderful quality. I can watch Fight Club at 320*240 and still enjoy it, but even at 1080p Laberynth is shit.

Ok. Enough ranting. For now.]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/
In software, think Firefox, in content, think WikiPedia, in movies, check out Project Orange, the Open Movie project ( http://orange.blender.org/ ), being built entirely with Open Source tools (can you say "free to copy and share"?).

In the music world, check out bands releasing music under Creative Commons licenses-- getting popular on the merit of the music, and selling more $15 live show admission tickets.

So think before saying DRM, 'holy' IP protection, and per-unit sales are the only way to encourage businesses/artists to create "legitimate" content. The future is not in protecting how it's been done in the past.]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/
Is the system hackable? Sure, everything is hackable. But it ain't gonna be easy and it ain't gonna clean and in much of the world it will be a felony.

And again - Apple holds a seat on the Blu-Ray board of directors - they are not only going along with this scheme, they are part of engine driving the OPM/DRM train.
]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/
#31: "[...] and in much of the world it will be a felony."

I assume that by "much of the world" you mean the US? This may surprise you, but US laws don't apply worldwide, and the concept of felony isn't global either.

Granted, the counterpart of DMCA in Europe, EUCD, is already implemented in a few countries, but its intended scope is neither clear nor consistent among the EU countries.

One more thing; I think most people aren't anti-Microsoft per se (when speaking of this particular issue, that is), but rather anti-DRM, anti-DMCA and anti-insane-restrictions-of-normal-use.]]>Dec 19th 2005 1:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/28/microsoft-responds-to-the-opm-controversy/Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM