Re: [proaudio] A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection

[Dominique Michel <dominique.michel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Le Wed, 17 Jan 2007 01:08:40 +1100,
Allan Klinbail <sonofzev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> What follows is a bit of a waffle, but I am airing some concerns I've
> had for a few months. While logically this may be viewed as MS shooting
> themselves in the foot, while they have market domination, they may as
> well be shooting the consumer in the chest.  
> 
> This is very scary, it totally contradicts the fair-usage prcinciple.
> I've been looking into buying a new TV - for my new dual purpose (MythTV
> and guest "live instrument PC" - no room in the mixing room for someone
> with a guitar), I've seen and read alot of stuff about HDCP....
> Ultimately I'm going with a (non-HD) Sony trinitron crt that I am
> picking up for peanuts... not for the price, but because a standard def
> DVD still looks better on this TV than the same movie in HD on a TV 10*
> the price.. Most people however will trust the marketing more than their
> own eyes (i'm not going to get near the aural side of it) 
> 
I worked under many years in the radio-TV industry as service engineer. It is
the same problem with a digital or analog TV as with a digital and analog
sound equipement. With the common used digital equipments, you get a good
quality for cheap, when with a high-end analog equipment, you get an expensive
system but of outstanding quality.

Digital video typically use 8 bits per color with 3 fundamental colors, that is
24 bits and about 16 millions colors. Some physicians are saying at a people
cannot see so many colors. They are both wrong and right. When looking at one
color at a time, they are right, but when looking at many colors at the same
time, we can see very subtile colors differences. It is why an analog picture
in studio, or at home with a really good antenna, can be better as a digital
picture.

HDCP will change it, but not the HDCP-Vista. And micro$oft is not taking in
account a very important fact. What have done the success of the first and very
expensive video recording systems (mostly VHS in Europe) was the ability for
every one to record himself and other peoples in all the situations and don't
have to send the tape to a laboratory. The result was immediate and the process
fully confidential.

Today, people buying HDCP recording system want to do the same, and they want
to do this in digital HD, not in HD->low-D->bad-HD as with Vista. I was not
aware of this very bad format conversion process that does Vista content
protection with every HD signal path before reading this article. One thing is
sure: no one want it. 

> > I have no problem with copy protection.. some of my income
> comes from copyrighted music... What I am opposed to is corporations
> gaining control 

As I just said, with digital technology, you get a good quality for
cheap. This is the case even for the recording industry. When analog technology
was alone on the market, the important for the recording industry was to own
the recording equipment. It was very expensive. Today, the most
important thing is to own the legal rights on the recorded material. All the
fights about those patent and copyright issues is about those legal rights on
the recorded (or printed or digital) material.

This article explain this much better as me and with a much better English:
http://www.iaspm.net/recordingindustry.htm

> of the dissemination of music, movies, or any other kind
> of knowledge (this is the crux of the matter).... The right to make a
> backup should be enshrined in law...

Private copy is legal in law in Switzerland, and even downloading on internet
with p2p softwares is assimilated to private copy when you are doing it
privately (not for business).

I think at we are now in the same situation as in the old time in Europe when
the church was the musical Authority. It ended when some nobles peoples begun
to mix popular music with church music. The result was not popular music, not
church music either, but the troubadour's music. It was a written music, and
only religious men and nobles men was able to read or write at that time. But
it was a real musical revolution. It was the first time after the Rome empire
at someone was making music outside the church and without to be forbidden or
arrested by the church.

Today, no music is forbidden, but a music is popular not because it is popular,
but because it is selling a lot. It is not quality but quantity. No nutriment
but a big mac.

The good news is at it is, thanks to relatively cheap digital technology, more
and more independant recording labels. So, I think at the liberation of
the music from the commercial format is in the way. And nothing will change it.
So the majors have to change, and the musicians have to become as the
writers: fully independents. As a writer, they can do the creation work
at home and even record it at home or in a little studio. They don't need the
majors anymore.

Another problem is the promotion. Internet is a great and cheap tool, but is
only a tool. I thing at what is needed at first is more organisation from
the independent labels and artists. 

We can do internet radio. We can even do Live event on internet. It is many ways
to explore and they can be very effective with a good organisation. 

If I look at http://www.davidrovics.com, David not only sell its music on the
internet, but as the radios are not sending its music in the US and elsewhere,
everyone can listen the music for free on the website. It is good for the
people and it is a good promotion for him (He is on tour in Danmark or Sverige
now). It have also many links on other artist websites, and those websites link
to him. It does as a net in the net.

And internet is not the only tool. Stage is still a very important tool. But we
can make a concert and send it on the web at the same time, so we will be both
in our proximity and every where at the same time (at least during the event, we
still have to wait for eternity...).

Ciao,
Dominique