The full text is available at the following site (it's kinda long, but interesting):
formatting link
A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection
> ===================================================
>
> Peter Gutmann, snipped-for-privacy@cs.auckland.ac.nz
>
formatting link
> Last updated 23 December 2006
>
> Executive Summary
> -----------------
>
> 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.
>
> Introduction
> ------------
>
> This document looks purely at the cost of the technical portions of Vista's
> content protection. The political issues (under the heading of DRM) have been
> examined in exhaustive detail elsewhere and won't be commented on further,
> unless it's relevant to the cost analysis. However, one important point that
> must be kept in mind when reading this document is that in order to work,
> Vista's content protection must be able to violate the laws of physics,
> something that's unlikely to happen no matter how much the content industry
> wishes it were possible. This conundrum is displayed over and over again in
> the Windows content-protection specs, with manufacturers being given no hard-
> and-fast guidelines but instead being instructed that they need to display as
> much dedication as possible to the party line. The documentation is peppered
> with sentences like:
>
> "It is recommended that a graphics manufacturer go beyond the strict letter
> of the specification and provide additional content-protection features,
> because this demonstrates their strong intent to protect premium content".
>
> This is an exceedingly strange way to write technical specifications, but is
> dictated by the fact that what the spec is trying to achieve is fundamentally
> impossible. Readers should keep this requirement to display appropriate
> levels of dedication in mind when reading the following analysis [Note A].