From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_1032_01C73D2C.FD755910
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   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

  "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message =
news:45b2fed0{at}w3.nls.net...
  Microsoft was part of the committee that established the scheme for =
content protection and thus 'mandated' taking my cpu cycles .

  For the record I don't advocate theft/misuse of artistic property. I =
just want fair use of that property after I purchase it ( backup, play = it
on devices of my choosing ).=20


    "Rich"  wrote in message news:45b2f6e3$1{at}w3.nls.net...
       The extra CPU is to support the protections mandated by the =
content.  The additional functionality is the ability to render that =
content at all.  If you don't want to play protected content such as =
HD-DVD or bluray then you should care that increased CPU is required to =
do so.  If you do want to play such content then you should be pleased =
that it is possible.

    Rich

      "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message =
news:45b2ec71$1{at}w3.nls.net...
      The Vista team is hallucinating equating additional CPU cycles =
used for drm=20
      with additional functionality for consumers.

      from the link
      ------------------------------------------------------------
      Will Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU =
resource=20
      consumption?

      Yes.  However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable, as =
the PC=20
      provides consumers with additional functionality.
      -------------------------------------------------------------

      "John Beamish"  wrote in message=20
      =
news:op.tmhkksu1m6tn4t{at}dellblack.wlfdle.phub.net.cable.rogers.com...
      > In this vein ... there was the story that Vista imposed DRM in =
such a=20
      > manner that if (for example) you were listening to a CD that was =
subject=20
      > to DRM and you were a technician viewing (according to this =
example) a=20
      > digital x-ray that the x-ray would be degraded to the same =
extent that DRM=20
      > required the CD to be degraded.
      >
      > The Windows Vista team replied here:
      > =
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows=
-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx

------=_NextPart_000_1032_01C73D2C.FD755910
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   You are
confused.  =
Microsoft may=20
have participated in the standards committees on the =
specifications.  As an=20
implementor and consequently an interested party, membership seems like = a good=20
idea.  The specifications don't mandate that content must be=20
protected.  It's the content providers that make this =
mandate.
 
Rich
 

  "Rich Gauszka" <gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.commailto:gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.com">gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.com
A>>=20
  wrote in message news:45b2fed0{at}w3.nls.net...
  Microsoft was part of the committee =
that=20
  established the scheme for content protection and thus 'mandated' =
taking my=20
  cpu cycles .
   
  For the record I don't advocate =
theft/misuse of=20
  artistic property. I just want fair use of that property after I =
purchase it (=20
  backup, play it on devices of my choosing ). 
   
   
  

    "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:45b2f6e3$1{at}w3.nls.net...
       The
extra CPU is to =
support the=20
    protections mandated by the content.  The additional =
functionality is=20
    the ability to render that content at all.  If you don't want =
to play=20
    protected content such as HD-DVD or bluray then you should care that =

    increased CPU is required to do so.  If you do want to play =
such=20
    content then you should be pleased that it is possible.
     
    Rich
     
    
      "Rich Gauszka" <gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.commailto:gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.com">gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.com
A>>=20
      wrote in message news:45b2ec71$1{at}w3.nls.net...The=20
      Vista team is hallucinating equating additional CPU cycles used =
for drm=20
      with additional functionality for
consumers.from the=20
      =
link------------------------------------------------------------W=
ill=20
      Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU resource=20
      consumption?Yes.  However, the
use of additional =
CPU=20
      cycles is inevitable, as the PC provides consumers with =
additional=20
      =
functionality.-------------------------------------------------------=
------"John=20
      Beamish" <JLBeamish{at}rogers.com>">mailto:JLBeamish{at}rogers.com">JLBeamish{at}rogers.com>
=
wrote in=20
      message news:op.tmhkksu1m6tn4t{at}dellblack.wlfdle.phub.net.cable.rogers.com..=
.>=20
      In this vein ... there was the story that Vista imposed DRM in =
such a=20
      > manner that if (for example) you were listening to a CD =
that was=20
      subject > to DRM and you were a technician viewing =
(according to=20
      this example) a > digital x-ray that the x-ray would be =
degraded to=20
      the same extent that DRM > required the CD to be=20
      degraded.>> The Windows Vista team replied =
here:> http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20=
/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx">http=
://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vis=
ta-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx

------=_NextPart_000_1032_01C73D2C.FD755910--

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