Vista's Legal Fine Print Raises Red Flags

[PMK]

PM me for link please

This is a long article, most of which focuses on 'activation' which is not new with Vista but is still worth the read. However, this part caught my eye:

For greater certainty, the terms and conditions remove any doubt about who is in control by providing that "this agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights." For those users frustrated by the software's limitations, Microsoft cautions that "you may not work around any technical limitations in the software."

Those technical limitations have proven to be even more controversial than the legal ones.

Last December, Peter Guttman, a computer scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand released a paper called "A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection." The paper pieced together the technical fine print behind Vista, unraveling numerous limitations in the new software seemingly installed at the direct request of Hollywood interests.

Guttman focused primarily on the restrictions associated with the ability to play back high-definition content from the next-generation DVDs such as Blu-Ray and HD-DVD (referred to as "premium content").

He noted that Vista intentionally degrades the picture quality of premium content when played on most computer monitors.

Guttman's research suggests that consumers will pay more for less with poorer picture quality yet higher costs since Microsoft needed to obtain licences from third parties in order to access the technology that protects premium content (those licence fees were presumably incorporated into Vista's price).

Moreover, he calculated that the technological controls would require considerable consumption of computing power with the system conducting 30 checks each second to ensure that there are no attacks on the security of the premium content.

[Crushdepth]

The DRM stuff is pretty annoying - particularly since it involves using a fair bit of *our* computing resources to manage *their* intellectual property.

Anyone know if Vista is actually on the shelves today? I'm thinking of heading down the IT mall...regardless.

[cdnvic]

The DRM is a pain for sure, but Vista still runs pretty smooth even with it. Apple's Leopard, an upgrade to OS X is rumoured to be as bad or worse (hence the delays). A legit HD disk is supposed to deal with this problem, but it may cause trouble with downloaded or streamed content.

As for activation, there's so many pirated copies of Windows out there that I'm actually a bit surprised that MS hasn't introduced such an aggressive system to deal with it before.

[A_Traveller]

IMHO the simple reason for not implementing such an 'aggressive' system before was to ensure a market penetration by pirated versions with the option to then create an income stream by 'genuine advantage' style programmes.

On the DRM issue this is increasingly leading to a perspective where, like the OS itself, you the user {consumer} do not own anything but simply have a lease to access the benefit of the process!

It has already been shown that the DRM on HD-DVD's prohibits individuals from playing the disk they legally own on a configuration which the license deems as unsafe, for the licensor, the so called analog hole.

See article below for more detail and how activist consumers are reacting :-

[sabajja]

Any system that hinders users from freely playback their store bought media content will offcourse backfire.

it will go the same way as with the constant "DVD protection updates".

"Skilled groups" will strip the Media of it's protections and release it as Xvid

torrents that can be played back on any device.

With the high definition stuff, same story.

Most people actually prefer downloading the outstanding Xvid format in favor of DVD these days.

I don't see any difference with HDVD.

Edited January 30, 2007 by sabajja

[nikster]

The DRM is a pain for sure, but Vista still runs pretty smooth even with it. Apple's Leopard, an upgrade to OS X is rumoured to be as bad or worse (hence the delays). A legit HD disk is supposed to deal with this problem, but it may cause trouble with downloaded or streamed content.

As for activation, there's so many pirated copies of Windows out there that I'm actually a bit surprised that MS hasn't introduced such an aggressive system to deal with it before.

Really? I was surprised that they bother. It seemed like they had all the markets where people can actually afford to buy windows by legal means - it's very hard to sell PCs in the U.S. or Europe _without_ an OEM copy of Windows on it.

And the rest... well Thais aren't going to suddenly pony up 4000 Baht for the privilege - if there were no piracy no doubt Linux would gain a lot of traction, particularly for corporate use.

I have severe doubts that the legal restrictions imposed on a Vista license would hold in front of a court of law, Microsoft or not. If I buy software, I well expect to be able to install it on any new PC that I buy, as long as I don't use it on two machines at the same time - seems reasonable to me and consumer protection laws generally will side with consumers here. I might be wrong, but this is my feeling.

I will get annoyed with the DRM once it annoys me, not before. The way it sounds like it's not so much evil as simply a broken concept. Maybe - and this is what I think will happen - no one will care about it. It's up to the content providers to restrict their content as they please and the MPIAA may be evil but even it won't be able to force consumers to buy things they don't want. Just look at the large pile of dead online music sales concepts....

[Plus]

Xvid or DivX formats are great for DVDs but demand too much processing power for HDTV, not that it matters for this particular topic.

[A_Traveller]

To the zealous link remover. The link I posted was to the BBC news website technology section and dealt specifically with the issues being raised within this thread. I fail to see why such a link should be removed, especially by an un-disclosed entity.

Now to other points raised herein, the DRM issue is far more wide ranging then many realise, as in a simple example a legaly purchased DVD may not be played if the chain of processing is deemed unsafe, by the supplier of the movie.

Further, MS have explicitly said if you purchase a PC with Vista preloaded you may not transfer it to another machine, even if the original machine ceases to exist. MS have said that a purchaser of Vista, but not OEM'd, may transfer the OS to another machine but have indicated that only one such transfer would be acceptable.

Then there's the encroachment of DRM into your own data, including processes within Word 2007 and Vista which are designed, to provide the originator of the document with further control. As an example in a commercial environment a document can be managed so that if set outside it may not be edited or changed.

But these 'tags' are not all easily identifiable and, in principal, means that document production can be traced through editing by different parties. Now if in this chain some applies security, because they have a more senior permission set than you, to your contribution the you may find you lose control of your data. This technology is also nascent in other parts of Office 2007.

The trick being employed here is to provide the user with apparent ease of use, whilst layering controls onto the process. Apple's iTunes is another example where so far users have been willing to give up a level of flexibility to benefit from the process. It remains to be seen if MS is as successful in making this sale with vista, especially when here are so few demonstrable benefits of a migration to Vista.

On the piratical market penetration I was referring primarily to this region, {especially China}.

Regards

[PMK]

My original link was removed also, replaced with a 'PM for link please' message which I did not write! Neither do I have the original link anymore. It would have been nice to at least get a PM from an administrator explaining what happened and why. There should not be a problem posting excerpts and links to news articles.

I also think that MS has deliberately avoided being overly aggressive controlling piracy for fear of giving Linux more market penetration. Can you imagine what would happen in the 3rd world if not only Windows but Windows Server, Exchange Server, SQL Server, SBS, etc., could simply not be gotten in pirated versions? Forget the home user, companies and even governments could not afford MS products, plain and simple. They would have no choice but to go to Linux and would probably even collaborate on developing applications. FOr MS, it's a situation like petty theft in an office or store - better to lose a few percent to it than all your employees in a crackdown.

Peter

To the zealous link remover. The link I posted was to the BBC news website technology section and dealt specifically with the issues being raised within this thread. I fail to see why such a link should be removed, especially by an un-disclosed entity.

[cdnvic]

If they aren't paying for it why would Microsoft give a toss if they use Linux? Linux is free, and people are actually encouraged to copy and redistribute it, but many people would rather steal Windows than learn Linux.

[Grover]

If they aren't paying for it why would Microsoft give a toss if they use Linux?

ummm... 6th line of the post above yours. It ain't rocket science.

[silvero]

MS have said that a purchaser of Vista, but not OEM'd, may transfer the OS to another machine but have indicated that only one such transfer would be acceptable.

This was correct originally but they have since changed the retail license allowing you to transfer more than once, you can read the license for yourself on the MS site. However, if you upgrade with Anytime Upgrade you are limited to one transfer

From the retail license:

15. REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE.

a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. You may uninstall the software and

install it on another device for your use. You may not do so to share this license between

devices.

b. Windows Anytime Upgrade Software. The first user of the software may reassign the

license to another device one time, but only if the license terms of the software you upgraded

from allows reassignment.

[sabajja]

I think if we wait to a year from now, and let the economic guru's at MS headquarters, do a "sold in first 12 month comparison", between Vista and XP.

They'll soon realize Microsoft needs a new market strategy.

I'm just totally convinced Vista is going to be a flop.

Edited January 31, 2007 by sabajja

[cdnvic]

If they aren't paying for it why would Microsoft give a toss if they use Linux?

ummm... 6th line of the post above yours. It ain't rocket science.

No, it's basic accounting. Losing pirated market share is no loss. It's easier to compete with another OS than a pirated copy of your own.

[cdnvic]

I think if we wait to a year from now, and let the economic guru's at MS headquarters, do a "sold in first 12 month comparison", between Vista and XP.

They'll soon realize Microsoft needs a new market strategy.

I'm just totally convinced Vista is going to be a flop.

The enterprise customers alone who have been putting off upgrades from Windows 2000 while waiting for Vista alone will push sales, not to mention OEM sales with new computers and those businesses who want the added security that Vista, especially in it's 64bit version offers over XP.

Most security experts and even alot of Macintossers who love to gloat about Macs are giving Vista good reviews.

[fxm88]

What's the status of shrink wrap licenses in Thailand? Has the issue ever been litigated in a Thai court?