In case you needed another reason to pirate movies, Microsoft is introducing a new hardware-based DRM scheme called PlayReady to lock down 4k content on Windows PCs. The user-restricting tool will only be available on Windows 10, ensuring users orphaned on earlier versions of the OS will need to upgrade to view the high-definition format.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2908089/all-about-playready-30-microsofts-secret-plan-to-lock-down-4k-movies-to-your-pc.html
From the article:
“Dad?! What’s going on? Why do we have to watch this movie in crappy standard-def?” The name of the movie might as well be Digital Rights Management: The New Nightmare. It stars Microsoft, who is working with chip vendors Intel, AMD, Nvidia, and Qualcomm to protect Hollywood’s movies from piracy as they travel through your PC. The technology it’s promoting is called PlayReady 3.0.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 26 2015, @11:09AM
Clueless Calvin, and about 280 million Americans will eat this shit, and tell us all how good it is.
If Clueless and his cousins would just tell Microsoft and Hollywood to pack it up their orifices, the world would be a much better place. Maybe I need to watch that stupid movie again - Wag the Dog.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday April 26 2015, @07:23PM
If the story telling is good enough? I'll watch SD - sometimes even 240.
If I want a f*cking light show, I'll go see the Floyd... ;-)
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Sunday April 26 2015, @09:03PM
Hear, hear!
If you don't like the delivery method, don't consume the content. Besides, is it so important for you to watch the latest Hollywood blockbuster that you need to break the law? It really isn't. "Oh, but it's a form of protest against DRM" They don't give a shit. They just want money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @12:01AM
> They don't give a shit. They just want money.
Sounds like you've just rationalized piracy as the most effective form of protest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @08:01AM
Not necessarily. Not buying something doesn't harm someone; it just means they don't gain. Therefore, you could also refrain from downloading any of it at all and it would be the same. And between giving them money and infringing upon copyrights, I'd rather people do the latter.
Also, law != morality, so the GP just saying something about breaking the law means nothing.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Monday April 27 2015, @11:58AM
I'd say the most rational form is to simply walk away from their content. Illegally viewing the content shows them that you still NEED it. They see that demand and they know they can capitalize on it. Telling them to piss off and shove their DRM laden content up the wazoo is much more effective. I liken it to a junkie that robs a drug dealer. That drug dealer is just going to arm themself and prevent a future attack. A game of cat and mouse ensues and you have a war.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Sunday April 26 2015, @11:36AM
If the HD content can only be viewed on Windows 10, it will especially not be viewable with any non-Microsoft operating system. Wouldn't that qualify as monopoly abuse?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by BsAtHome on Sunday April 26 2015, @12:08PM
Only for as long until the "pirates" crack the system wide open. Then we will be sued into oblivion for watching what we actually paid for.
The right to read (see appropriate link through a search engine) is also extendible to the right to watch. When you squeeze harder and harder, at some point we can hope that the pressure makes the can pop.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @12:27PM
What you're saying is asinine. First of all, Windows 10 has pretty much no market penetration yet, SINCE IT HASN'T BEEN RELEASED! Second of all, even when it is released, it will have only a comparatively small fraction of the market for some time, possibly forever. Third of all, there's nothing to say that this technology won't be ported to other platforms. Fourth of all, this movie content will very likely be available on Blu-ray, so it can be watched without using Windows 10. So where in the fuck is the monopoly here? There is no fucking monopoly, so quit pretending that there is.
(Score: -1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @12:40PM
Mod the parent comment up. It's not a troll, obviously. There is no evidence of monopoly here. So it's wrong to claim that there is.
(Score: 3, Touché) by sigma on Sunday April 26 2015, @02:27PM
Very obviously posted by the same AC as above and below.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @12:43PM
It's time for SN to show to modded a comment.
We should get to know which dumbass here incorrectly marked down that perfectly good comment to -1, Troll.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @04:08AM
We should get to know which dumbass here incorrectly marked down that perfectly good comment to -1, Troll.
Only if we know who the dimplass who posted the perfectly good troll post as an AC was. Do you really want to go there, punk? Huh, do ya?
(and of course, I am a different AC that the parent AC, and I did mod the parent as "whinge".)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gravis on Sunday April 26 2015, @05:28PM
there's nothing to say that this technology won't be ported to other platforms
LOL! What in microsoft's history makes you think they would do anything except keep it exclusively for Windows?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @08:50PM
Another point:
The title of this story is very witty.
It recognizes a previous effort by M$ to have its own DRM/format.
PlaysForSure figures prominently in the Obsolescence section of the article on DRM. [wikipedia.org]
So, how long before M$ abandons *this* rights-crippling meme?
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @02:31AM
M$ will support the format fully until it can get (or force via the studios) those it sees as major competitors to support it in place of competing DRM systems, then they'll extinguish it. They've run this play so many times I don't know why anyone falls for it. If they can block any competing standard via collusion with the studios as $ony did with blu-ray, they have a chance.
Otherwise negative publicity might be enough to make it the new DivX.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday April 26 2015, @06:02PM
If only PCs running Microsoft programs will be able to show movies then it certainly qualify as a monopolized market and can be punished.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Sunday April 26 2015, @09:41PM
Fourth of all, this movie content will very likely be available on Blu-ray
What is this optical technology you are talking about?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @11:49AM
Microsoft are not stupid; they know the truth of the matter; they know that DRM in the computer domain is a technical joke.
All this is just a business game they are playing with the corporate world; Microsoft are a clever fisherman selling fresh fish to the corporate world.
The end user is not the real target here.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @12:30PM
The quote from the kid should be
Dad?! What’s going on? Why do we have to watch this shitty American movie?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @12:48PM
Absolutely.
Been watching non-American movies lately, and I absolutely have to agree. Language might be a problem for some, but there are lots of people providing free subtitles in many languages.
Movies are wonderful outside America. Hollywood rips off foreign movies without even mentioning the original they stole from, and then calls its rips "intellectual property". Whats so intellectual about stealing?
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Sunday April 26 2015, @04:00PM
"There is nothing new under the Sun."
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @08:23PM
There is nothing new under the Sun
Yes there is. Its called "Creativity".
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @02:02AM
> Hollywood rips off foreign movies without even mentioning the original they stole from,
However, 99 times out of 100 they paid for the rights to the story.
Since most people who see the remake will have zero interest in watching the now-redundant-to-them premake, there really isn't much lost.
And, BTW, I'm confident I've seen more non-US movies than you have. Probably over a thousand asian films alone. I'm just not worked up about it. The fact that hollywood productions outsell domestic films in nearly all countries without domestic quotas (like mainland China and South Korea) means that a very large proportion of people actually do like hollywood films, schlocky or not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @04:23PM
There's more "good" content from America and the world than you could possibly watch.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nollij on Sunday April 26 2015, @12:39PM
A shrinking percentage view this type of content through their PCs. Most use some sort of STB (e.g. Roku) or smart TV.
4K is still rare, and the vast majority of it is marketed as a TV, not a monitor.
This is Microsoft attempting to seem relevant in a brave new world, nothing more.
(Score: 2) by mtrycz on Sunday April 26 2015, @01:26PM
You forgot to mention that 4k itself doesn't really matter. It's just a marketing gimmick, and device and content producers would be far better off improving other aspects of their devices/content (framerates, contrast, color fidelity, durability... security maybe?).
But they need to keep on selling, so they go with what the "market" wants.
Reminds me of digital photography in late 00s. "we've got more pixels!", it might have been relevant at the time, and consumers got to think that more pixels meant more quality. So the producers followed the flow, and made camers with ridiculous pixel counts. It's just a numer, and it's easy to hook up a customer on that.
I totally enjoyed films in vhs, at the time. Personally I don't feel I need 4k for anything general-purpose.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by mrcoolbp on Sunday April 26 2015, @02:22PM
There's truth to that statement, but more pixels do have a significant impact on the picture. There's of course a point at which this no longer helps (when approaching the angular resolution limits of our eyes). 4K TVs, therefore, are better at being bigger, and still looking good. With computer monitors, generally we sit much closer, so again, (I haven't done the research so someone can prove me wrong here), I'm pretty sure our eyes can still take advantage of most of those pixels (see stagnant monitor resolutions over the past 10-15 years).
Further, at least some companies are trying to improve some of these qualities on 4K panels; my friend is working on improving 4K panels by using nano dots to help produce true white light (instead of the "biased" light produced by typical light sources, the dots are manufactured to absorb and re-emit the correct wavelengths making much more "pure" white). This will improve contrast as well because they don't have to turn up the brightness in order to produce the colors which are less represented by typical light sources. His specific project isn't working on "durability" per-say, but rather how to make this tech last as long as possible (exposure to oxygen kills the nano dots). Framerates are tough for the TV world, as the vast majority of all source content is already in 24/29.97/60 FPS, but boy would I love to see some higher frame-rates.
I have no interest in a 4K TV (until they aren't much more expensive then regular TVs), but I would certainly consider a 4K monitor if it wasn't exorbitantly priced (good luck on that though?).
(Score:1^½, Radical)
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday April 26 2015, @03:21PM
I'd love to see how far display technologies will be pushed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#Tiers_and_levels [wikipedia.org]
For example, HEVC 6.2: 3,840 × 2,160 @ 300.0 FPS and 8,192 × 4,320 @ 120.0 FPS.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Sunday April 26 2015, @06:08PM
Content distribution is a problem even for just 4k @ 30 fps. Only satellite links with PVR or content cache with fiber links will perhaps do it. But that requires some business rethinking and users to change behavior and expectations. Not happing really.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Sunday April 26 2015, @06:27PM
We keep hearing that 15-20 Mbps is sufficient for 4K streaming [dailytech.com], and VP10, NETVC, Perseus, etc. [soylentnews.org] could cut down on the bandwidth needed vs. H.265. 7-12 Mbps may be possible.
Plus the major application for 4K @90 FPS or better won't be prerendered movies, it will be VR. VR companies want to deliver 90-120 FPS [roadtovr.com] at resolutions better than 2560x1440.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Sunday April 26 2015, @07:07PM
15-20 Mbit/s seems alright. Provided it works when millions of people starts to watch that stream too ;-)
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday April 26 2015, @07:26PM
Beads of dripping sweat and all...
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday April 26 2015, @10:23PM
And the zits on the womens' asses.
(Score: 5, Informative) by rts008 on Sunday April 26 2015, @02:34PM
I worked at Creative Labs doing tech support when MS shoved out that 'Plays for Sure' crap on the world.
It was a nightmare. It was difficult to explain to them that they did not 'own' what they perceived as having been bought.
With phonograph records, tapes of various types, CD's(and other discs), when Joe Sixpack bought these, he had possesion and 'control' of them.
The transition from physically owned media, to subscription-based access to the media, well...it has not been smooth.
It did not help matters that they could see the files on their mp3 player and PC's music library, and then they would 'just suddenly stop working'.
"I have physical possesion of these files on the player I bought, and I don't have 'control' of them? WTF?!?!?"
I heard that tune dozens of times every single day. That is not counting the dozens of calls every day that had 'legitimate' issues with Plays for Sure.
I truly pity anyone that will find themselves having to do tech support for 'PlayReady', I expect that it will be a much worse can of worms.(barrel of vipers?)
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @05:17PM
Not mentioned: why do the hardware manufacturers cooperate with MS on this stuff? My 5yo system will be upgraded/repaired repeatedly before I buy a box with these hardware encumbrances. And I'm not the only one who feels this way, apparently, as shown by sagging PC sales figures. They are playing the Deere fiasco all over again.
http://investmentwatchblog.com/we-cant-let-john-deere-destroy-the-very-idea-of-ownership/ [investmentwatchblog.com]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday April 26 2015, @06:10PM
You must assume that corporate leadership is acting rationally ;)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @12:08AM
> And I'm not the only one who feels this way, apparently, as shown by sagging PC sales figures.
That is an enormous leap of logic.
There are all kinds of reasons behind sagging PC sales, but esoteric arguments about technical minutiae barely even make the list. What does make the list? Smart phones filling the niche that PCs previously occupied. And if there is one relevant thing about smartphones here, it is that they are locked down tighter than a chastity belt. MS ain't got nothing on iphone and android when it comes to DRM.