James Delahunty
22 Jan 2007 19:50
Microsoft Corp. has defended the included Digital Rights Management (DRM) software on the Windows Vista operating system. In particular, the copy protection built in for high definition content has received criticism from experts. Vista has the ability to downgrade the video quality and the audio quality of content if the hardware does not have required copy protection technology in place.
Specifically this means that a user with a video card that contains a DVI or component output and no High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) may receive downgraded quality while trying to play back content from HD DVD or Blu-ray Disc titles. Microsoft has insisted that the DRM in place would only be put into effect on "premium content".
Peter Gutmann, a computer science lecturer at the University of Auckland, recently referred to Vista as "broken by design" and intentionally crippled the way it displayed video. He he described Vista's Content Protection specification as "the longest suicide note" in history. "The sheer obnoxiousness of Vista's content protection may end up being the biggest incentive to piracy yet created," he wrote.
Dave Marsh, lead program manager for video at Microsoft however, defended the systems in place on Vista and pointed out that they were common on many playback devices. He said that while Vista has the ability to downgrade video quality, it would only perform that action "when required by the policy associated with the content being played".
Gutmann told BBC News that it was "re-assuring" that only the ability to playback high definition content could be revoked, but he said that consumers who have paid thousands of dollars for high quality display devices will not be happy when they realize they are getting downgraded or no video. "Some of the feedback I have been getting indicates that HD-DVD discs are not playing on some PCs." he said.
He also criticized how the DRM would use up more CPU cycles and said it was insincere of Microsoft to lay the responsibility for the extra copy protection at the feet of content providers. "Saying 'we were only following orders' has historically proven not to be a very good excuse. If you have got the protection measures there, the impulse is to use the most stringent ones at your disposal." he said
"In general, some sort of DRM is necessary, but we need to strike a balance. It's very consumer-hostile technology that is being deployed." Gutmann added.
Source:
BBC News