Several days ago, I stumbled over this very interesting piece on Windows Vista’s built-in copy-protection system by Peter Gutman.
For those of you who do not want to read the 6000+ words analysis (although it’s definitely worth it!), here is the short version: Gutman argues that the restrictions imposed on users and hardware suppliers will decrease functionality, reduce display quality and increase hardware costs.
The central problem is that, once a medium containing “premium content” (newspeak for “everything involving moving pictures and sound published later than … wait … now!”) is inserted, Vista’s content-protection kicks in and happily disables anything considered “insecure” (i.e. not approved by music labels and Hollywood studios). Unfortunately, nearly all up-to-date equipment available today uses “insecure” connectors for high-quality media playback (S/PDIF for sound, DVI without HDCP or – god forbid! – VGA and Component for video). And since only digital, encrypted channels are considered fit for “premium content”, these connection methods are shut off or – if the studios feel generous – are fed with a greatly reduced quality.
Gutman goes on how this could actually threaten human lives (if used in medical imaging equipment). I think this part of his text should be ignored – companies producing such equipment will make damn sure that no image-quality reduction is possible without the user knowing about it. I also sincerely believe my doctor is able to distinguish between an image-artefact and a brain tumour 
This argument is very similar to other topics like freedom of speech, privacy and user control frequently used by DRM-critics. Although they are very important, the average customer simply doesn’t care.
What he does care about is the price and functionality of his new PC.
This is the only aspect which could seriously threaten the success of user restriction management.
For starters, not only the PC, but also display and sound system (both usually survive several generations of new PCs) have to be replaced by ones featuring the new, copy-protected interfaces.
Additionally, all output media will be considerably more expensive than non-copy-protected ones and the new PC has to offer an increase in performance a lot bigger than a usual upgrade would offer.
The reason for this is plain and simple: Encryption. Media-Company executives have heard about possibilities to protect data from unauthorised access a few years ago and now believe it to be the solution to all their problems.
So the requirement for all new “copy-protected” “premium content” is: encryption. Everywhere. As much as humanly possible.
And here we have the first big problem: Encryption in general, but a strong one especially, consumes a lot of processing power. And since new “premium content” uses pretty strong encryption not only for the data on the disc, but for everything between the disc and the eye/ear (Oh my god, these horrible terrorisehhhh movie-pirates could copy the picture right out of the cable!) you need a lot of processing power to display it.
So the computer – being still a modular, open architecture – has to de-/encrypt the “premium content” several times: The CPU decrypts the data from the drive, then right away encrypts it again and sends it (encrypted) to the graphics card (those terrorist are resourceful! They could grab our content from the conductor on the mainboard!). The graphics card again de- and encrypts it to sends it encrypted to the display which again decrypts it so it can be displayed.
Sound is handled accordingly.
As all the components included in the process also have some processing to do (you want an image on the screen, not garbled image-information, right?), they better be fast. And since we have “premium” high-definition content with a lot of data, they better be real fast. And faster CPU/graphics card usually means a more expensive CPU/graphics card.
But wait, there is still more. In order to comply with the copy-protection-guidelines, the hardware used has to fulfil some requirements considering the placement of conductors, chips and the like. So, the manufacturer is not allowed to design its hardware the way he wants to (or the way that would be most efficient). This means greater effort in design and production, leading to – you guessed it – higher price.
So much for the PC. But also the display and sound system have to do some cryptography. While inside the PC, the necessary processing is done by components which usually have a lot of it – CPU and graphics processor – the necessity for this kind of processing power is totally new in displays and sound systems, making them a lot more expensive than their counterparts without encryption.
Also, the new interfaces between them and the PC had to be completely new designed for the purpose of transferring extremely high data rates of encrypted “content” – again costs the customer has to pay.
And all this effort will definitely prove to be futile. A 100% bullet-proof copy-protection system is impossible – computers are by their very nature machines specifically designed to copy data. No matter how well-designed, impossible to crack a copy-protection might be in theory. It is still created by humans and humans make errors. And once working methods of stripping the protection from “premium content” exist, everybody will – again – be able to just download and view it in all its HD-glory. Without Vista-like restrictions.
So what does this type of copy protection offer?
The paying customer gets an expensive, restrictive, most likely buggy method for viewing his movies.
Hollywood gets a system that simply can not work , and hopefully a lot of angry customers (and even more piracy).
The Hardware- and software vendors get more effort in developing new products and unnecessary hassle from certification and licensing issues.
Microsoft gets a bloated, extremely complex and error-prone component in an otherwise good operating system, and the problems of developing all the requirements and forcing them on their partners.
So it appears to be a losing situation for everybody involved. The only one really profiting from this is – who? A decades-old and doomed business model?
Why are these people so desperately trying to turn the PC into something it was never meant to be? Why not scrap the whole idea of “premium content” on the PC and instead give everybody a sealed black box for playing the stuff?
