From: "Geo." 

Oh god, you point to David Marsh as a truthful source? Nobody with the
title of Evangelist gets to call themselves truthful.

Geo.

"Rich"  wrote in message news:45b40ac7{at}w3.nls.net...
   This guy is still a bozo and his "paper" is a bunch of random noise.
Unless you want to look like a bozo I wouldn't let him speak for you.  See
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista
-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx
for truthful information on the subject.

   BTW, the degradation referred to is mandated for all players not just
software players on PCs.

Rich

  "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:45b40704$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  There's content protection  and there is consumer abuse

  http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

  Alongside the all-or-nothing approach of disabling output, Vista requires
that any interface that provides high-quality output degrade the signal
quality that passes through it if premium content is present. This is done
through a "constrictor" that downgrades the signal to a much
lower-quality one, then up- scales it again back to the original spec, but
with a significant loss in quality. So if you're using an expensive new LCD
display fed from a high- quality DVI signal on your video card and there's
protected content present, the picture you're going to see will be, as the
spec puts it, "slightly fuzzy", a bit like a 10-year-old CRT
monitor that you picked up for $2 at a yard sale [Note F]. In fact the
specification specifically still allows for old VGA analog outputs, but
even that's only because disallowing them would upset too many existing
owners of analog monitors. In the future even analog VGA output will
probably have to be disabled. The only thing that seems to be explicitly
allowed is the extremely low-quality TV-out, provided that Macrovision is
applied to it.

    "Rich"  wrote in message news:45b405f9$1{at}w3.nls.net...
       So you think that HD DVD or bluray would have been released without
any standard for content protection?  In what fantasy world do you live?

    Rich

      "Geo."  wrote in message
news:45b3c353$1{at}w3.nls.net...
      The specifications from the standards committee is what makes the
mandate
      possible, and in itself mandates the limits of those capabilities.

      Geo.

      "Rich"  wrote in message news:45b38858{at}w3.nls.net...
         You are confused.  Microsoft may have participated in the standards
      committees on the specifications.  As an implementor and consequently
an
      interested party, membership seems like a good idea.  The
specifications
      don't mandate that content must be protected.  It's the content
providers
      that make this mandate.

      Rich

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5