I find it interesting that essentially we (the consumers) are paying extra to prohibit ourselves from listening/watching content illegally.
Part of the cost when we buy DRM music is paying into research of DRM. We now see things like this in which the consumer will be paying for extra hardware to protect them selves from partaking in illegal activity.
I am all for stopping illegal copying of media, but not at my expense. In my opinion this is the worst part of Content Protection (DRM), the legal consumers get charged extra for their legally purchased content while the illegal users will just find another way around paying.
Because of the legal users getting charged for what the illegal users do, it seems like more and more people turn to the illegal side... After all why pay for something when you can have someone else pay for it.
Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to provide content protection for so-called "premium content", typically HD data from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources. Providing this protection incurs considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical support overhead, and hardware and software cost. These issues affect not only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the protection measures extend to cover all hardware and software that will ever come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista (for example hardware in a Macintosh computer or on a Linux server). This document analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry.
Executive Executive Summary
The Vista Content Protection specification could very well constitute the longest suicide note in history."
Andy included a link to this article in todays SDR News feed. The article is well worth reading in detail.