Text 15502, 197 rader
Skriven 2007-01-21 00:36:02 av Rich Gauszka (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 15501 av Rich (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Content protection
==============================
From: "Rich Gauszka" <gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0062_01C73CF4.211D17B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Microsoft was part of the committee that established the scheme for = content
protection and thus 'mandated' taking my cpu cycles .
For the record I don't advocate theft/misuse of artistic property. I = just
want fair use of that property after I purchase it ( backup, play = it on
devices of my choosing ).=20
Another nit I have is that for the past few years manufacturers have = lied and
sold equipment as 'HD ready' and now they've changed the rules = with HDCP et
al after people have purchased those not so ready devices. = The rules changed
because the manufacurers changed the rules. Now we = have complex connectors (
HDCP ) that enforce copy protection and an = entire mechanism to enforce it
that looks like it will cost the = consumer more more than the loss sustained
by the content providers=20
http://www.hdmi.org/consumer/faq.asp
The most common compatibility problems have to do with HDCP. Probably = the
most common failure is the lack of an HDCP repeater function or = failure to
perform the authentication reliably in all types of usage = scenarios.
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:45b2f6e3$1@w3.nls.net...
The extra CPU is to support the protections mandated by the =
content. The additional functionality is the ability to render that = content
at all. If you don't want to play protected content such as = HD-DVD or bluray
then you should care that increased CPU is required to = do so. If you do want
to play such content then you should be pleased = that it is possible.
Rich
"Rich Gauszka" <gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com> wrote in message =
news:45b2ec71$1@w3.nls.net...
The Vista team is hallucinating equating additional CPU cycles used =
for drm=20
with additional functionality for consumers.
from the link
------------------------------------------------------------
Will Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU resource =
consumption?
Yes. However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable, as =
the PC=20
provides consumers with additional functionality.
-------------------------------------------------------------
"John Beamish" <JLBeamish@rogers.com> wrote in message=20
news:op.tmhkksu1m6tn4t@dellblack.wlfdle.phub.net.cable.rogers.com...
> In this vein ... there was the story that Vista imposed DRM in =
such a=20
> manner that if (for example) you were listening to a CD that was =
subject=20
> to DRM and you were a technician viewing (according to this =
example) a=20
> digital x-ray that the x-ray would be degraded to the same extent =
that DRM=20
> required the CD to be degraded.
>
> The Windows Vista team replied here:
> =
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows=
-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx
------=_NextPart_000_0062_01C73CF4.211D17B0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.3020" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Microsoft was part of the committee =
that=20
established the scheme for content protection and thus 'mandated' taking = my
cpu=20
cycles .</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>For the record I don't advocate =
theft/misuse of=20
artistic property. I just want fair use of that property after I = purchase it
(=20
backup, play it on devices of my choosing ). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Another nit I have is that for the past =
few years=20
manufacturers have lied and sold equipment as 'HD ready' and now they've =
changed=20
the rules with HDCP et al after people have purchased those not so ready =
devices. The rules changed because the manufacurers changed the = rules.
Now=20
we have complex connectors ( HDCP ) that enforce copy = protection
and=20
an entire mechanism to enforce it that looks like it will cost the =
consumer more more than the loss sustained by the content providers=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://www.hdmi.org/consumer/faq.asp">http://www.hdmi.org/consume=
r/faq.asp</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>The most common compatibility problems have to do with HDCP. =
Probably the=20
most common failure is the lack of an HDCP repeater function or failure = to=20
perform the authentication reliably in all types of usage = scenarios.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Rich" <@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:45b2f6e3$1@w3.nls.net">news:45b2f6e3$1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DI=
V>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> The extra CPU is to =
support the=20
protections mandated by the content. The additional =
functionality is the=20
ability to render that content at all. If you don't want to play =
protected content such as HD-DVD or bluray then you should care that =
increased=20
CPU is required to do so. If you do want to play such content =
then you=20
should be pleased that it is possible.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Rich Gauszka" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com">gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com</=
A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:45b2ec71$1@w3.nls.net">news:45b2ec71$1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DI=
V>The=20
Vista team is hallucinating equating additional CPU cycles used for =
drm=20
<BR>with additional functionality for consumers.<BR><BR>from the=20
=
link<BR>------------------------------------------------------------<BR>W=
ill=20
Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU resource=20
<BR>consumption?<BR><BR>Yes. However, the use of additional =
CPU cycles=20
is inevitable, as the PC <BR>provides consumers with additional=20
=
functionality.<BR>-------------------------------------------------------=
------<BR><BR>"John=20
Beamish" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:JLBeamish@rogers.com">JLBeamish@rogers.com</A>> =
wrote in=20
message <BR><A=20
=
href=3D"news:op.tmhkksu1m6tn4t@dellblack.wlfdle.phub.net.cable.rogers.com=
">news:op.tmhkksu1m6tn4t@dellblack.wlfdle.phub.net.cable.rogers.com</A>..=
.<BR>>=20
In this vein ... there was the story that Vista imposed DRM in such =
a=20
<BR>> manner that if (for example) you were listening to a CD =
that was=20
subject <BR>> to DRM and you were a technician viewing (according =
to this=20
example) a <BR>> digital x-ray that the x-ray would be degraded =
to the=20
same extent that DRM <BR>> required the CD to be=20
degraded.<BR>><BR>> The Windows Vista team replied =
here:<BR>> <A=20
=
href=3D"http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20=
/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx">http=
://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vis=
ta-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx</A><BR></BLOCKQUO=
TE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0062_01C73CF4.211D17B0--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|