SVP : More Video Anti-Copying Technology

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SVP : More Video Anti-Copying Technology

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Sunday September 12, 2004 @02:22PM from the they're-against-otan dept.

rkroetch writes "NDS, STMicroelectronics and Thomson have announced they will develop a new anti-piracy technology called SVP (Secure Video Processor). This will require a special SVP processor in the box to play the encrypted video signal. All those licensing fees for our DVD-ROMs for nothing?"

16 of 391 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I don't understand... by Mold · 2004-09-12 14:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

Why they always have to call it piracy. Why not something like, "Copyright Control Device/Software".

Oh well, I suppose I do understand why. I just don't like it.
1. Re:I don't understand... by paedobear · 2004-09-12 14:47 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  That's a very loaded statement. Or are you trying to imply that everyone that's downloaded an unlicenced piece of data is a potential, repressed, rapist?
2. Re:I don't understand... by geminidomino · 2004-09-12 16:21 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I'd like to take this opportunity to coin the term "Sodomy of Rights"
3. Re:I don't understand... by gilroy · 2004-09-12 16:21 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Blockquoth the poster:
  
  It's the same general social dysfunction, it's just a smaller scale.
  
  Plus, well, software piracy results in a lot fewer deaths.
  
  Oh, wait. That means it isn't "the same general dysfunction" at all. One involves murder and mayhem; the other involves scoping out 2 Fast 2 Furious for free. Indeed, as is continuously (and facetiously) pointed out all the time on slashdot, even supporters of file swapping don't agree that, say, their cars should be communal -- so there's no "same general disdain for other people's property and rights". (Under other topics file swappers seem in fact to be more concerned with people's rights, so that sort of takes care of a "general disdain" right there.)
  
  Look, infringement of copyright is illegal. In fact, it's even wrong. People shouldn't do it. But that doesn't make it piracy, except through the unjustified and laughably outrageous co-option of the term by publishers, a long long time ago.
  
  And they co-opted the term, as one of the parent posters noted, precisely to raise the connotations of the universally-decried crime of (actual) piracy, to make copyright infringers look more menacing than they actually are.
  
  --
  The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
It's crazy... by OneDeeTenTee · 2004-09-12 14:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

...but people don't believe me when I say that we currently have the technology to create a total lockdown of digital content.

Sure, the analog hole is still there, but we don't want to be limited by that, do we?

--
Stop the world; I need to get off.
Re:hmm...yea.. by Nykon · 2004-09-12 14:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

so, how long till a SVP VM is written that will make the actual chip obsolete ;)

--
"It's better to be a pirate then join the Navy"
Coming soon to DirecTV... by LostCluster · 2004-09-12 14:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

From the article...

NDS, 78 percent owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, has developed the anti-piracy software component for SVP. Beginning next year, Thomson will embed SVP-enabled chips developed by STMicro into its video playback devices and set-top boxes.

American satellite TV operator DIRECTV, a News Corp affiliate, is the first to use the new technology, the companies said.

Now, let's think about this for a second. Even though DirecTV has about millions units in circulation now, the actual decryption part of the operation is done in the form of a single smart card that is very easy to swap out. Therefore, DirecTV doesn't have to make everybody get new boxes to apply this tech, they just have to send out new cards.
1. Re:Coming soon to DirecTV... by NoMoreNicksLeft · 2004-09-12 14:35 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Can they afford another card swap so quickly? I was suprised to see the P3 die so quickly after the P2, but P4 and P5 are already out... to retire those even a year from now seems insane.
2. Re:Coming soon to DirecTV... by LostCluster · 2004-09-12 14:44 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Swapping cards BEFORE they're widely hacked is the only way to prevent hacking from ever recurring as badly as DirecTV used to have to deal with.
  
  Sure, spend all the processing resources you can muster, if the solution to the codec isn't descovered until the card generation is already retired, then it'll be a successful hack but too late to cause any money problems.
3. Re:Coming soon to DirecTV... by NoMoreNicksLeft · 2004-09-12 15:13 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I'm not disputing that this might be their philosophy, but no one can argue that it's cheap.
  
  Even at their quantities, a card is still a non-trivial cost. Let's say it's only $5. Times 10 million subscribers, thats $50 million dollars. Then, logistics for shipping all of them. Double that. Add to it people who have older recievers, that just won't work, despite extensive testing. They'll spend $150 per subscriber there, and they'll do it because they don't want to risk losing that customer. I have no way to estimate how often this happens, but my guess is 25,000-100,000 for the p3-p4/p5 swap alone.
  
  And in truth, what does it gain them? The conversion rate from satellite hackers to paying subscribers can't be that high, even when hacks are unavailable. And those conversions will only remain loyal as long as hacks remain unavailable. If they converted 200,000 such people with the last swap, I'd be shocked. And I would think that's the minimum necessary, to even break even.
  
  From an accounting standpoint, this can't be justified on dollar amounts alone. You have to start figuring in other factors... such as strategy. If they can use high piracy numbers to get lucrative legislation passed, maybe you can make up for it in the long run (something that corporations are notorious for ignoring). But even if that is the case, this runs things in the complete opposite direction... at the moment, DirecTV has reduced their "piracy" problem from a high of maybe 400,000 at its peak, to no more than 5-10 (serious number). At the moment, no one who doesn't have access to a million dollar lab is completely locked out, and I have my doubts that even a proof of concept hack exists.
  
  But it gets even weirder. of that 400,000 number, I'd say close to half were canadian... completely unavailable (by law) as customers. For them, there is no conversion possible.
  
  None of it makes any sense, so I'm obviously missing pieces here and there. However, that only makes me suspicious that they're *really* up to something stinky.
encryption by abes · 2004-09-12 14:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

I am curious as to how they will manage encryption with this, and if it will be yet another encryption through obfuscation.

It seems the smartest approach is to publish and patent the encryption scheme, but make it so time consuming, that you will need hardware to do the decryption properly. That way any one who tries to get around the protection scheme and not pay royalties will be easily sueable.

The upside for non-mainstream OS users, is that it will most likely mean non-OS dependent solutions (maybe).

Of course programmable logic chips could potentially be a threat, but not a major one, as most people don't have that type of hardware.
1. Re:encryption by Alsee · 2004-09-12 22:20 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I am curious as to how they will manage encryption with this
  
  It is pretty much a Trusted Computing system on a chip.
  
  How does it work? Well the ultra-simplified explanation is that every chip has a different random secret key locked inside. The chips are tamper resistant and designed to self-destruct their secret key if they detect you attempting to rip the chip itself open to read the key.
  
  The chips use some cute mathemagical tricks that allow them to use those secret random numbers recognize other genuine secure chips while refusing to speak to any fake chip you try to make yourself. The real random keys come with a signature. You could always make up your own random key, however you cannot fake the signature for it and it will be rejected.
  
  The chips then use some more mathemagic to be able to send encrypted messages to each other. They can read those messages, but no matter how much you eavesdrop on their conversation you can't read or alter anthing they say to eachother unless you know one of their secret random keys.
  
  They can re-encrypt and store files locked under their secret keys. Without knowing that secret key you can't read any of their files and you can't do anything that they do not specifically permit you to do.
  
  If you *do* manage to dissect one of these self-destructing chips and manage to read out its secret key then you have broken free and can do whatever you like. However if you give a copy of that secret key to anyone else they will probably dectect that multiple key use (every key is supposed to be random and unique, so if they see the same key twice they know you copied it), and they will revoke that key. Dead key. They will also revoke your key if you do not adaquately conceal the fact that you have free and unrestricted control of your own machine.
  
  Unless they seriously screw up somewhere, there simply will not be any possible software attacks. The only way to beat the system is with a special lab ripping chips open and reading keys out one by one. Depending on how they set up the system each chip you rip and each key you extract can pretty much only only be used by one person. One rip, one person.
  
  -
  
  --
  - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
"Black boxes" are designed to foil the masses by kcbrown · 2004-09-12 14:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

...and not the technologically adept.
That's because people who are technologically adept and who have sufficient resources are quite rare. Only someone who can hack the hardware would be able to grab the original digital content from a properly-designed black box.
I suspect that hardware like this will, in time (if not immediately), be used to enforce pay-per-view or something like that for permanent media. From the info page:
The basic control paradigm for SVP is "Content X for Device Y in Time window Z. " This means that content X can be viewed only on the target (approved Y) device and only during the broadcaster-specified time window (which can range from 'immediate view only' until 'forever' Z).

Yep, sounds like pay-per-view to me.
It really is only a matter of time before everything that's available falls under the control of something like this...

--
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Re:From the Web Site by Baricom · 2004-09-12 14:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

Okay, how about: "I don't buy from people who try to squeeze out every last bit of producer surplus, forgetting that customer goodwill generates repeat sales and word-of-mouth advertising"?
How much money has been wasted on this stuff? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-12 15:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

Back in the 80's, a lot of people were hyping copy-protection schemes for software. It was basically snake-oil; none of it did any good, and any software which used it soon died because copy-protection doesn't help the consumer.

Now, here in the 00's, we have the reincarnated version of this. The ONLY people who care about it are the Media conglomerates. Again, not the consumers.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

So, my big question is this. Does anybody have any actual numbers on how much money has been dumped into these snake-oil schemes?

A fool and his money are indeed soon parted. It really beats me why spends their time developing this stuff, let alone funding it. Clearly it is self-delusion.
The issue on copying by Johnny+Hardcore · 2004-09-12 19:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

The issue of copying music isn't IF you can copy it, it's HOW WELL you can do it. No matter what you do to protect your media content, it has to be playable on your standard TV, stereo, or whatnot. I mean, I can easily copy any movie you give me with a camcorder, right? :)

The industry would be better off figuring out how they should be selling their products instead of how to gouge the general public. Ventures like this have always proven to end in failure, and always make things more inconvenient for the people who actually pay for it (usually the less technically-savy too)!

Isn't it funny how you can copy an Aerosmith CD and steal from Sony Music, with your Sony CD burner and CD-R and support Sony Electronics? Who really loses? ;)