Text 15547, 78 rader
Skriven 2007-01-21 19:24:22 av Geo. (1:379/45)
  Kommentar till text 15544 av Rich (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Content protection
==============================
From: "Geo." <georger@nls.net>

My point is it is the vendors who enable features like content expiration who
are responsible, not the people who requested it, but the people like Microsoft
who make it real.

Geo.

"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:45b405a9$1@w3.nls.net...
   The implementation in Windows is a framework with a set of capabilities
necessary to meet the requirements of not just HD-DVD but other content as
well.  It is not a hard coded implementation of any specific requirements. This
is necessary to allow Windows to be  a platform for playback of as much content
as possible.

   Your example of expiration is something that doesn't apply to HD-DVD, or
at least I don't think so but I could be wrong.  I'm not at all familiar with
what AACS allows.  It is something that applies to distributable audio and
video content.  If you see it used, you should contact the content provider
and/or licensor to ask why.  FWIW, an expiration date has been supported since
version 1.0 or WMDRM released in 1999.

Rich

  "Geo." <georger@nls.net> wrote in message news:45b3c20f$1@w3.nls.net...
  If the content protection in vista goes above and beyond that found on
HDDVD
  players then can you really claim it was just to support protections
  mandated by the content? For example if vista allows downloading content
  that expires after a week, you can't possibly be serious that vista isn't
  directly responsible for extending the capabilities of HD-DVD content
  protection.

  Geo.

  "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
    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
    provides consumers with additional functionality.
    -------------------------------------------------------------

    "John Beamish" <JLBeamish@rogers.com> wrote in message
    news:op.tmhkksu1m6tn4t@dellblack.wlfdle.phub.net.cable.rogers.com...
    > In this vein ... there was the story that Vista imposed DRM in such a
    > manner that if (for example) you were listening to a CD that was
subject
    > to DRM and you were a technician viewing (according to this example) a
    > digital x-ray that the x-ray would be degraded to the same extent that
  DRM
    > required the CD to be degraded.
    >
    > The Windows Vista team replied here:
    >
  http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vis
ta-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)