What Windows Vista Means to the Open PC Platform

…unless your computer can talk to an online Microsoft hardware database that can give the computer the green light to claim itself a “protected environment” once it checks in.

Windows will be able to do the checks via drivers and the OS for the different devices, dial-up shouldn’t be an issue here to see what’s protected and what’s not.

If Microsoft is disabling software that circumvents copy-protection, how about software that uses codecs that Microsoft doesn’t deem secure?

Codec’s don’t matter, they don’t need or have anything protected to decrypt or verify. The content protection systems sets the bar, the people who enable playback (in this case Microsoft) must meet that bar, or they can’t add playback functionally.

Or how about PVR companies like SnapStream, will they be put out of commission on Windows machines because Microsoft certified hardware won’t allow their software to access broadcast or premium content being played through the computer unless they use Microsoft’s DRM technologies? (Say bye, bye to your DivX TV show recordings.)

This is something I don’t know about, but assuming they play this like they have with other technologies (WMRM, DirectShow, etc) they will be able to interface with the bits that are in Windows Vista. They will likely just need to license it. Same type of thing that Blight has done with Zoom Player, and the countless other applications that support WMRM. License it, to allow your application to play protected content. The problem with this will surely be open source projects like Media Portal.

…Both are valid points, but both issues can be easily addressed with interoperable DRM (which I’ve been pushing for) that can be played back on any device regardless of OS platform and integrating UPnP functionality.

The whole “only one DRM’ system is a great idea, but it’s not coming fast enough. The systems need to be ready to use and develop for today! Don’t think this is a Microsoft only type thing, both DivXNetworks and Real’s Helix DRM were/are both approved for things like the Broadcast Flag. Microsoft isn’t the only one in the game.

TiVoGuard, WMRM, DivX DRM, 4C, DTCP (5C), Phillips VCPS, DHCP, Sony MagicGate, Helix DRM, and Thomson SmartRight are all different DRM/Protection system that have/had been approved by the content owners/MPAA for the BF. Clearly the content owners don’t care about a single system, nor do the CE/IT companies! Sucks, but it’s too late to change that.

Plus, open platform really can’t play nice with many DRM system, it’s not exactly an easy task to incorporate DRM into an OS like Linux where anyone can download the souce! No matter what DRM system, whether it be interoperable or not, are easy to enable on such an open system.

Microsoft wants to make ALL future computers “protected environments,” like it or not – most likely for the reason that computers are becoming a commodity. “Why upgrade when you can buy a new computer?” is their reasoning. As to how consumers are going to react to these changes, we’ll have to wait and see. But I, for one, will think long and hard before continuing down Microsoft’s upgrade path.

There reason is to allow you to play the content! I will have more this week on this at my blog, but upgrade or not, it’s a difference in playing the content on your PC and not playing it. Only you can make that choice. :) You will see a company or two that will bring you playback of the media via software+hardware that we have currently, but I don’t think that will last very long.

Chris

***Does anyone have suggestions on how-to implement a DRM system in a completely open OS (i.e. Linux)? I’d be interested in how everyone thinks it could be done and what would be involved. Without compromising the openness (i.e the source for the OS and Kernel must still be open for download)

Wow, you are basing your anger on a whole lot of conjectures here:

The bottom line is that if you decide to swap out one of the above mentioned hardware items with a non-certified component, the system will be crippled, or worse, unable to boot! That’s the impression I’m getting.

From which part of of the whitepaper are you getting this impression? Certainly not the part you quoted. Do you really think Microsoft and Intel are going to prevent your computer from running legacy hardware, thereby giving up a major selling point of the PC platform–backward compatibility?

The fact is that the whitepaper does not suggest anything other than that only the playback of previously unavailable premium content will be affected by OCP. Your are seeing things that aren’t there.

My other concern is with software developers. If Microsoft is disabling software that circumvents copy-protection, how about software that uses codecs that Microsoft doesn’t deem secure? …Say bye, bye to your DivX TV show recordings.)

Once again, where does the whitepaper mention disabling third party software, or preventing your from playing back unprotected content? What evidence do you have that Microsoft will somehow cripple all or some pre-DRM content, DivX included?

Should a third party developer want to play back DRM-protected content in their own applications, they will simply do what they have been doing for some time–tap into the Microsoft-supplied API and allow Windows to prompt the user for licensing information. If a license for the video already exists on the system, it starts playing automatically without bothering the user.

The whitepaper explicitly states:

The openness of the hardware platform is essential to a vibrant PC ecosystem. In the current world, however, the industry is also working to prevent hackers from using that openness to pirate copyrighted content. The goal is to make the Windows-based PC a safer place for premium content, so that content providers will be happy to allow Windows-based PCs to play their content.

In other words, Microsoft is trying to strike a balance of openness and protection. What they are proposing is essentially to allow the PC, when needed, to curtain off a certain part of the runtime environment and form a “gated community” full of checkpoints wherein the integrity of protected content can be guaranteed. The openness of the PC architecture as a whole is not compromised significantly by this, since it will continue to support non-certified hardware and software–Linux included.

Having conceded defeat on SD content, Hollywood is betting on the new HD codecs as a fresh start in their war against piracy. Microsoft has to placate this need in order to allow the playback of this new content (as will any operation system that wishes to do the same). But for them to do anything more than this would be shooting themselves in the foot. Fortunately this vision of the future currently only exists in the minds of conspiracy theorists, and of those who do not–and refuse to–understand the technology being proposed. Stay away from the hysteria.

ChrisL01 said: Does anyone have suggestions on how-to implement a DRM system in a completely open OS (i.e. Linux)? I’d be interested in how everyone thinks it could be done and what would be involved. Without compromising the openness (i.e the source for the OS and Kernel must still be open for download)

Newsforge reports (via Managing Rights Management): “On the security front, the kernel is to get its own contact for security issues. Trusted computing — digital rights management support — is being implemented for better or for worse in the Linux kernel.”

Alex – great article!

bluetentacle said: Wow, you are basing your anger on a whole lot of conjectures here:

From which part of of the whitepaper are you getting this impression? Certainly not the part you quoted. Do you really think Microsoft and Intel are going to prevent your computer from running legacy hardware, thereby giving up a major selling point of the PC platform–backward compatibility?

They are not – they will prevent you to play DRMed content and for that there is a list of approved hardware. Read this article on my blog TheaterAtHome.blogspot.com
It does complement what Alex is saying.

Mike

Mike, thanks for the heads up on “East Fork” and its tie-in to MCE 2006! I didn’t even know it existed. :eek: (FYI, I just added The Inquirer link to the body of the article.)

Related links:
The Inquirer – Intel to cut Linux out of the content market
Slashdot – Intel to cut Linux out of the content market
Theater @Home – Intel’s new media platform exclusively for Microsoft

Mike said: Alex – great article!

They are not – they will prevent you to play DRMed content and for that there is a list of approved hardware.

Mike

That’s precisely my point–only DRMed content is affected. Alex is saying more than that–he fears that installing uncertified hardware will no longer be possible–and that’s the point of disagreement.

I’m sorry, but anything written by Charlie Demerjian should be discredited from the start. This guy has a track record of not being able to get a single thing right about Microsoft and Media Center. Go back and look at some of his other “work”, but remember 90% of what he writes is false.

BTW, if anyone can find information about “Secure Premium Content Module (SPCM)” please let me know. Google way to find that the only sources are those who are quoting the article.

Newsforge reports (via Managing Rights Management): “On the security front, the kernel is to get its own contact for security issues. Trusted computing — digital rights management support — is being implemented for better or for worse in the Linux kernel.”

Interesting. When and if ships, it will be interesting to see if anything is actually made of it. If the source is there for it, no one is going to allow protected content on Linux. If the source is not there, that’s no step closer to a closed system. And the hardware needed to output some of this content (HD-DVD = HDMI) puts the cap on Linux being an open system with playback.

Chris

bluetentacle said: That’s precisely my point–only DRMed content is affected. Alex is saying more than that–he fears that installing uncertified hardware will no longer be possible–and that’s the point of disagreement.

I don’t want to be rude (I appreciate all comments), but what part of “locked down” don’t you get? If you replace a certified piece of hardware out of a “protected environment” PC, and replace it with a generic version, YOU WILL have loss of functionality – to what extent, I don’t know. (Look at the list of MCE compatible hardware – Anything not approved by Microsoft, and installed on your PC, will render parts of MCE useless)

Let me give you a scenario: Say you want to replace your sound card with one that is not Microsoft cetified (with PUMA and PAP technologies enabled), you’ll most likely not be able to play any DRM-protected music that you’ve purchased, or possibly, not even be allowed to hear audio coming from a DVD or HD-DVD. How’s that for the “openness of the hardware platform?”

BTW, don’t fall for marketing double-speak: (Do you have the link to the whitepapers you quoted?)

The openness of the hardware platform is essential to a vibrant PC ecosystem. In the current world, however, the industry is also working to prevent hackers from using that openness to pirate copyrighted content. The goal is to make the Windows-based PC a safer place for premium content, so that content providers will be happy to allow Windows-based PCs to play their content.

FYI: I just got off the phone with a PR Rep at Intel in regards to Charlie Demerjian’s article at The Inquirer. While she didn’t go into detail, I did get that the article includes “several inaccuracies on many levels”. Also that they can’t comment on “technologies that might or might not exist”. Lastly, I got that Intel has not released any public information on the subject. Leading me to think Charlie may have pulled 99% of that article out of his…

If you replace a certified piece of hardware out of a “protected environment” PC, and replace it with a generic version, YOU WILL have loss of functionality – to what extent, I don’t know.

Of course you will have a loss of functionality, protected media will not playback. That’s the idea behind all of this, to enable you to play protected media. If your not interested in playing protected media, you don’t lose a thing. Nor do you gain anything.

EDIT: “will not playback” isn’t the right usage. That all depends on the media, for the most part we are taking about playing media back at full-res.

Chris

ChrisL01 said: Lastly, I got that Intel has not released any public information on the subject. Leading me to think Charlie may have pulled 99% of that article out of his…

LOL, good one :D

But I’m still curious to learn more about East Fork and SPCM (Secure Premium Content Module). I’m sure the developers I know are under NDA regarding these types of upcoming technologies.

Ok, pertend I’m the average Joe consumer (not far from the truth). These are the questions I would ask (my own guess in italics):

Can I use the new OS on my old PC?
Not if you want to watch/listen to any ‘premium’ content.

Can I use my old monitor?
No.

If I need a new/special monitor, with this work with the $3000 tv I just bought?

Will all my old media files be upgraded to the new DRM without my consent?

Do I have to use Windows Media Player, or can I use the media player of my choice.

Can I still rip my CDs and DVDs?

Will this work with my iPod or any other mp3 player I may want to buy?

If my hard-drive or some other component fails, will I be able to repace it and still access my media (assume no loss of functionality)? Will I have to buy an expensive brand instead of the cheapest I can find?
Yes, but not as easily as before. No ,only a small set of approved components

Can I store my files on a networked computer, USB drive, or NAS?

Why is this better then tivo or some other cheaper options?

Will hackers be able to get around this?
Eventually, yes, but we’ll have more hardware or software you’ll need to buy by then, so don’t worry about it.

Does anybody have solid answers to these questions yet? I admit, I’m too lazy to go through all the links.

Melvin, you bring up good questions, but most of the answers you’re looking for can only get speculative responses. Unfortunately, we don’t know how this will all play out. However, the ability to rip CDs and DVDs on any of the new Windows Vista machines, I’m almost positive, will be disabled. Just look at all the effort Microsoft is putting into integrating next-gen copy protection technology… I’m sure their software will be able to detect DRM-circumvention software installed on a PC and disable it (they’ll probably tag it as spyware and notify you that it’s a security vulnerability that must be eradicated — creative, aren’t I? ;) ).

Alexander Grundner said: …(Look at the list of MCE compatible hardware – Anything not approved by Microsoft, and installed on your PC, will render parts of MCE useless)

The “Designed for Windows XP Media Center Edition” Logo Program is nothing more than a certification program to assure consumers that certain hardware products are guaranteed to be compatible with MCE, since the requirements are quite high-end. Uncertified hardware is not guaranteed to work, but the operating system itself does not insist on certification. For example, non-WHQL-certified beta video card drivers will work fine with MCE, as long as they have the requisite capabilities, have enough video memory, etc.

This has nothing to do with DRM. The aim is to make MCE computers as close to painless to use as consumer electronics, since they are supposed to find a place in the living room.

Let me give you a scenario:…How’s that for the “openness of the hardware platform?”

Well, we are talking about DRM only, aren’t we? Once we step into protected content, talks of “openness” is completely irrelevant, since the very point of DRM is to limit what you can do with the licensed material.

The thing to remember is that outside of protected content the “openness” of the PC will not be impacted much at all by the new technology. You can still do whatever you want with unprotected content, uncertified software, and uncertified hardware.

BTW, don’t fall for marketing double-speak:[/B] (Do you have the link to the whitepapers you quoted?)

This paper has been out for a while:

Output Content Protection

bluetentacle said: Well, we are talking about DRM only, aren’t we? Once we step into protected content, talks of “openness” is completely irrelevant, since the very point of DRM is to limit what you can do with the licensed material.

To be clear, we’re talking about PC components that are required to have DRM technologies built-in to them to create a “protected environment.” Hence, any non-certified, off-the-shelf component is considered a vulnerability to the system, which I suggest will cripple the machine if installed.

I think Chris Lanier says it best:

ChrisL01 said: Of course you will have a loss of functionality, protected media will not playback. That’s the idea behind all of this, to enable you to play protected media. If your not interested in playing protected media, you don’t lose a thing. Nor do you gain anything.

That’s the decision consumers will have to make: To play ball or not to play ball?

Alexander Grundner said: To be clear, we’re talking about PC components that are required to have DRM technologies built-in to them to create a “protected environment.” Hence, any non-certified, off-the-shelf component is considered a vulnerability to the system, which I suggest will cripple the machine if installed.

…only in the sense that it won’t play DRM-protected material. If you don’t have such content, you are not impacted.

Now imagine that Microsoft has not created OCP, and the content providers therefore refuse to make their HD material playable on PCs all together. Do you find this scenario preferable to the one above?

Microsoft on DRM, Content Protection, and PVP-OPM

Chris

ChrisL01 said: If the source is there for it, no one is going to allow protected content on Linux. If the source is not there, that’s no step closer to a closed system. And the hardware needed to output some of this content (HD-DVD = HDMI) puts the cap on Linux being an open system with playback.

Chris, as I am sure you know, the theory of cryptography is always assuming that the details of the system are open and are known by the adversary and that the security of the system has to be proven under these circumstances. This means that opening the source has nothing to do with creating a secure system. In fact if anything it will get the bugs eliminated faster.
So I am puzzled here, what makes you say that it is not possible to build a secure system when the source is open? I can tell you that if the security of Microsoft solution has anyhting to do with the fact that the code is closed it will be broken within days!!! But if they have a solid solution from computer science perspective then it won’t. Take RSA and other public key systems for example, they are not broken and yet their underlying methods have been published and known for many years plus there are many open source implementations out there. In fact the open source implementations are considered by academia far more secure than the Microsoft implemetation (or any closed source for that matter), in which I am willing to bet there are far more bugs than in the open source ones (not to mention all the theories about the big brother introducing some back doors into these closed systems).

Good point!

However, DRM Systems work with more than just “cryptography” or encryption. If you look at a system like WMRM, the encrypted key is distributed out of the package. There is a whole lot more than just that single key that plays into actually obtaining a license, then being able to play the content. One of the top reasons a closed implementation would have to be done, IMHO, is any “individualization” method used in the system. I personally think if you got a completely open system, tasks like that and others like revocation and renewability would not be able to happen.

Now the other part comes with the developers of the protection system, who can set the bar for exactly how “open” the system can be. Most of the time, you would be licensing the technology from the developers or creators, and I doubt you will find many next-gen DRM/protection systems that allow for an open implementation.

Chris

New articles to look over: (Not pretty)
Sydney Morning Herald – Windows Offers New Vistas Of Spending
The Inquirer – Microsoft Vista Creates DRM Insanity
TechWeb – Microsoft Buffeted By Criticism Over Vista DRM