Microsoft Patents DRM'ed P2P, Torrent Method

Now not only are games plagued by sometimes unplayable, buggy, only keeps the honest types honest DRM hype. Which makes the cracked versions of most games the MORE stable alternative..
Now P2P will have it too!
As we all know everyone loves MS, now combine it with DRM...I see a winner here (sarcasm)

Hey, that fit nicely with their DRM infected Swiss Cheese OS Windows 7. Their fanboys will love it, Now flame me fan boys on how great MS is.

The patent office really needs to join the modern era and stop awarding all of these silly software patents.

wow great, a DRM created by microsoft, somehow i dont see this going well, DRMs cause wayyy more problems than they solve and i hope someday someone will slap the CEO's so that they realize this.

I'm not looking forward to it but maybe just maybe this will give people in favor of P2P a legitimate argument.

So basically, the only reason that people would use this is because the other P2P clients are no longer available. Is Windows 8 going to be the ultimate police state enforcer, and shove this down everybody's throats, while preventing other P2P apps from running?

If you value your online privacy and freedom, you may want to check out Linux...

I can still run anything I want on Windows, including open source software like Firefox, Dev C++, and Open Office. They aren't policing anything, and this invention is just a combination of a type of torrent-esque P2P and conventional pay-to-download media.

No conspiracy, just a different method of distributing media - the DRM just makes it so that you can only watch/listen/play if you paid for it. Unless you crack it and pirate it, which once again, is nothing new. We've been using DRM in one form or another for many years. Most DRM doesn't even get in the way or cause any trouble - its the few bad ones (Sony rootkits, etc) that make people really cringe.
Ah, I see you're running the new Trollware 49.3, how's that working out for you?

I hope msft fails to the deepest darkest hell pit with their stupid drm.
is it necessary that they make use of all possible ways to put their brand on everything usable by consumers and make more money??

I'm happy with windows 7... that's decent business.
I hate DRM... I HATE WINDOWS LIVE AND I HOPE THEIR NEW DRM FAILS SO BAD THAT THEY NEVER THINK OF INVESTING INTO ANYTHING EXCEPT THEIR OS!!!!!1!1

how much does patenting cost?? :s

So what happens if I want to watch my movies on the road? Whoops, can't authenticate, can't play it. But I bought it? Yeah. This is no solution. It'll just get hacked up anyway.

paranoid freak. i mean.... nope, i got no other word.

i would assume there drm would work like the zune pass drm (witch is the only drm i have found that i am willing to accept) you download the file, it authenticates for a month (or how ever long it is set for zune pass is a month) and you can use it freely until that month is over then you have to re authenticate to reactivate it.

"Trusted" computing sounds familiar? Just wait a bit more, to get
mandatory access control, copy protection, and digital rights management goodies enforced upon.


Really? Just about 10-15% performance penalties, due to overhead... in the current v6.x gamer/drm o$.

Wintarded micro$uxx fankiddies will "love" this one too, like the gamer/drm o$, when it's shoved down their throats by m$ & co.

Why is anyone surprised about Microsoft trying a DRM protected online distribution model, after all they are trying to work towards distributing all their software online, as an interface to the back-end cloud computing end... all we will end up with is keyboards, touchpads/mice and monitors. All our information will be stored on servers out there somewhere... Privacy is dead because there's more money for corporations being able to sell and resell every aspect of our lives to any company or government they can get money out of. Ever wonder why you get so much ads in the mailbox, or in your inbox? We're all profiled, and this is just another step along the road.

Rwear, rokay.
Oh yes, because 100% identical H.264 streams in an MP4 container suffer a 10-15% performance hit when they're protected? Proof?

AlexTehBlue: You fall somewhere between naive and stupid. When given the choice of DRM and non-DRM, what do people choose? Non-DRM, of course, because DRM sucks for many, many reasons, even if you're not pirating.

There will always be wav format, and audio out/in jacks, and open-source players, so it'd be naive to think that we can magically make all audio past and presented into some DRMed form, and furthermore, you could directly record the output of a DRMed file into a non-DRM format. This is incredibly intrusive, considering it's a battle they can't possibly win.

Ipods demand your address and credit card before you can sync them to iTunes, which is why I will never own one. If Microsoft goes to uber-intrusive DRM like Apple already has, then guess what? Your choices as a free, non-sheep person are: GNU/Linux/*BSD.

I like the inclusion of the word "optional." This a an improvement over the Zune's file sharing that has manditory DRM

Long live Ubuntu and all open source operating systems.....Now only if we can have games natively produced for Linux....mhm?

If Linux is trollware then so be it MS fanboy

Software is neutral in this respect, it's the people behind the screen that can be idiots (on both/all sides of this and other arguments).

Can we please keep this on topic instead of making wild claims with no basis in fact and going on tangents?

Encrypted content means more CPU cycles needed to decrypt it in order to play it, this prevents older systems from viewing content and reduces performance in newer systems if a user wants to multitask

by the nature of this technology, there will be a bandwidth overhead as it takes more data to create and maintain an encrypted stream of traffic.

the legit user gains nothing from this, they only loose bandwidth and system performance, and through the nature of permission based DRM, is it requires an internet connection in order to confirm that you are not stealing and if you don't have internet or the company that does the DRM or owns the DRM servers, dies, then your content is gone also

imagine spending hundreds of dollars on content and suddenly loose it because the company that owned the DRM servers goes out of business.

companies need to learn that DRM does not stop piracy it increases it because think about this

if there were 2 people offering you the same content; Person A if offering a video with DRM in which you get the content, it only works on their software and their portable devices and the content has to be validated on their servers so if they ever go out of business, the content you paid for is useless.

Person B is offering the same content which will come with no DRM and will be available in any format you want so it can work with any device.

who would you go with?

what these companies need to do is put no DRM of any media or games and instead offer an experience that cant be pirated. Piracy is not convenient, it requires a user to spend time looking for the content, downloading it and scanning it for infections with multiple scanners, and hoping it is the correct content that they spend all day getting
avoiding DRM makes this worth it for them,

the media companies need to make a service that is very convenient and easier to use than the pirate route, they need to make the content available in all popular formats and make it so that a propitiatory program is not needed to gain access to the content.

look at movies, there available for download and also sold on almost every street corner here in NY days before the movie is out in theaters
on the way to the movies, you will pass by at least 10 people selling the movie on dvd. but theres one thing that cant be pirated, the experience, and quality and guaranteed safety of the content, + you can bring in your favorite meal with you to the movies if you put other stuff on top of the food and put it in a bag

when a few hundred million people go o see a movie, can the media companies really think that they don't know about pirating the content, they do, they just rather go to the movies to see it

take ANY DVD/BRay
put it in your PC drive
use "DVD Decrypter" to copy to your HDD
burn the files back to a DVD/BRay

Play the store disk log cpu/ram
Play the copy and log cpu/ram

Logs = your Proof
An a desktop DVD/BRay has a much higher "performance hit" then your PC.

looks interesting, but i don't see it as an effective medium for music just for the simple fact that there are DRM free options out there... now if they can do software i might be interested, beats going to the store only to find your games sold out... and saves on gas but then again this scheme does not look like it supports software... unless I'm missing something. its also worth noting that there is no text for reactivation of content does that mean that the activation would be a one time deal? who knows... i cant really judge anything unless there's an actual product out, ill reserve the right to bash M$ till then.

yep, a bluray video will usually use like 80-90% CPU usage on a mid range system while the same video, same bitrate and similar file size (DRM removed) will have a 10-20% CPU usage
DRM only hurts the legit customer, a user getting DRM free bluray content can still use their ancient amd 64 4000+ and geforce 6 home theater PC to watch their favorite 1080P content as the same quality and bit rate by pirating it while a legit customer will need a high end dual or quad core system with the latest video hardware that supports HDCP and also accelerates some of the decrypting of the DRM crap just to watch it, a DRM free video is more cost effective hardware wise for the users (also since theres no HDCP crap with drm free content, you can use your VGA connection or hdmi on your older non HDCP tv and still enjoy 1080P

DRM & Torrent?
Bwahahaha!
I wonder how long that'll live before being cracked!
Lolz!

Microsoft the patent troll strikes again. This patent is complete BS. I had a similar idea the moment bit torrent came out, it is an obvious idea.

I hope that there are clear examples of prior art out there that will nullify this patent or using bit torrent to legally distribute copy protected material is going to get very expensive.

This and folding@home both take the cake. With folding at home, you get to crack cryptography for the NSA under the ruse of curing cancer(while real cures like DCA don't even get an FDA review). You reckon if enough of us fold@home, that we'll cure cancer? F@H even mooches off of several open-source projects, but don't go asking them for the source-code, it's a ummm... secret.

Now, with this, not only do you get to take part in the DRM police state, but now you even get to provide the file server for them. Is this any better than having your PC turned into a Spam-bot?

torrents are more reliable

with a normal server, if the server goes down, the content is no longer accessible, but with a torrent, as long as at least 1 peer has 100% of the file, everyone downloading the torrent will still receive data

torrents are less effected by a heavy number of people download

and torrents offered by large companies are still hosted by the server, so the server will accept as many people as it normally would for a http or ftp download but only difference will be it will also use the torrent network, which means if the server goes down or goes under heavy load, everyone will still get fast reliable downloads,

this also has the added benefit of lowering hosting cost, instead of getting multiple servers and hundreds of thousands of dollars in bandwidth to distribute your content, you can have a 1 server and a cheaper but decent connection and use bit torrent to distribute the content and get better performance than if you went with the multiple server and super fast connection with a ton of available bandwidth

Interesting.... too bad I hate DRM, and I hate software patents.

So 10% more cpu utilization means you need a 2 - 4x the CPU power and likewise for the GPU? Yes that makes perfect sense....

You know, no one really cares about you and your puppet accounts "os of freedom" and whatnot. Pretty much none of us care about your paranoia, either...

I never said 10% higher, if you read the entire post you will see

"a bluray video will usually use like 80-90% CPU usage on a mid range system while the same video, same bitrate and similar file size (DRM removed) will have a 10-20% CPU usage", thats a 70% difference in CPU usage.

when the bluray content is encrypted, it takes a ton of CPU and GPU power to decrypt it, most older videocards will not offer any hardware acceleration for the drm'ed crap which further raises the CPU requirement
but if you get the content with out the DRM generally older videocards will offer acceleration and since there will be no decrypting, you get a much lower CPU usage and better hardware acceleration, which allows for less of a performance overhead which allows older systems to handle the bluray quality content