Slashdot Mirror
HighDef Content to Require New Monitors
QT writes "Ars Technica has an interesting article on how HDCP figures into Microsoft and Apple's future OS plans.
Not only will future HD content not play in pure HD on most existing monitors (it will be degraded, or not shown at all), but high-end monitors today don't support HDCP yet. HDCP
has been coming for 3+ years, but geek fantasy items such as Apple's $3,000 30" Cinema Display don't even have support for it yet! The end result is that when Windows Vista ships
(and Apple's next OS), most people won't be able to watch protected HD content on their computers."
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
So, no hardware supports is officially yet, but with Vista you can watch it on you pc (under reduced resolution anyway)...
Yes Microsoft has plans to incorperate full-on video DRM.
But Apple has never said they will - this article just postulates they will have to.
Well, before ITMS would not people have also postulated that it would be impossible for Apple to sell songs without DRM that would restrict CD burning? After all, that was the standard of the time.
Some companies are smart enough to realize that obsoleteing millions of monitors is Not Smart, and will avoid doing so if they can. And Apple has shown they can avoid the more onerous restrictions set forth by giant industries that would rather have it otherwise. And making millions of computer monitors obsolete is right up there in terms of gall.
So the story poster would have been wise to note the speculative nature of the topic instead of proclaiming it as fact from Apple.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Well from simply reading the summary it sounds like all the protection is being held in the OS, therefore couldn't an Open Source OS circumvent this protection. Just load it up in Linux and none of us nerds have anything to worry about. In fact, we could put it in Linux rip off the DRM and burn it to whatever media we need, then we're home free for whatever format we need, DVD, CD, Blu-Ray, even playable back in Windows and Mac.
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
So Hollywood will lose a bundle on this harebrained scheme.
sulli
RTFJ.
and DVDJon, our Lord and Saviour, will break this nonsense scheme in 3..2..1..
That means nobody will watch "protected HD content," thereby killing this idea from the get go.
Are they going to use region-encoding as well, so you can't look at a US monitor in Australia?
There's a bit of info about all this over at DRMadness as well, though it's aimed specifically at Blu-ray and HD-DVD (but that's HighDef content as well, isn't it)...
it's not worth bothering with.
Of course, for the first while, all the HDTV-philes will want HDTV that costs more than $2000, and settle for sets that cost more than $1100, while most of us will settle for $600 sets.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Um, what the hell has this to do with Microsoft? HDCP has to do with hardware, and last I checked, Microsoft doesn't sell monitors.
Somehow it's always their fault, I guess.
2. Aim at foot.
3. Pull trigger.
When Windows Vista ships (and Apple's next OS), most people won't be able to watch protected HD content on their computers.
How long will it take DVD John or some other like minded individual to find a loophole in the protection on these discs? I'm guessing (or at least hoping) within the first month of the release of Vista.
HDCP is already dead given the wide opposition of consumers against such types of controversial technology. I can watch HDTV on my existing LCD big screen and would never pay a premium and support any DRM related technologies.
The end result is that when Windows Vista ships (and Apple's next OS), most people won't be able to watch protected HD content on their computers LEGALLY."
about 30 days after the first piece of media is released I'll be able to watch it under linux and BSD in full resolution as someone will have foundand released a crack/hack/mod/whatever.
They are wasting their time trying to "protect" this stuff. all they are doing is finding new ways to piss off the legit consumer.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I give it a week before somebody cracks it
If it's dead, you killed it.
Seriously. Hollywood has an organized boycott coming for this. Not only are they screwing every HDTV owner who lacks HDMI or DVI/HDCP inputs (a huge number of sets were sold with component only inputs), but now they plan to screw computer owners over too. Just don't buy their shit. Let the new Blu-Ray and/or HD-DVD decks sit unsold on shelves for a year or two and watch the these cartels shit their pants with all that unsold inventory. Maybe they'll even respond to consumer wishes afterward!
But it won't happen spontaneously. An organized boycott is the only solution. --M
1) Ordinary people won't bother watching HD content on their computers - it will be too cumbersome.
2) Pirates won't care, as always, ripping to DivX or whatever and then watching as usual.
3) Ordinary people will discover DivX rips (family, friends of pirates) and watch HD content, not knowing that they're not supposed to. The pirates will mumble something about bad big corporations but they won't really care as long as they can watch the latest episode of Lost.
When Will These Idiots Get It?
Because I didn't have an idea of what this was talking about - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCP
That's OK, I was planning on boycotting and/or stealing and/or disabling the DRM on any such protected content anyway. If they don't want me to see it, I'll avoid buying it, thanks anyway. I'd download or create ripped DRM-less versions if forced too.
Spending a lot of time and effort downloading or ripping content will still be a lot cheaper than buying a multi-thousand-dollar monitor. Besides, most NTSC content is acceptable anyway...
And when people realize this, they simply won't BUY protected HD content, and it'll end up like DVD-RAM. They're shooting themselves in the foot -- it's that simple.
If they want us to invest so much money in friggin' DRM'ed players, why don't they just give away their content in lo-res so only those wh ocan afford it, will be able to see the HD?
I ain't spending any money on a HD movie if all i'm getting is lowdef. If I already paid for it, why should spend even more? I just hope someone declares DRM to be inconstitutional or something...
What if they threw a Hi-Def party and nobody came?
Or to put it another way, just how many times are you going to let these people pick your pocket? We could just say that what we all have today is already good enough! .
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Can't this problem be solved by the simple addition of a dongle that connects between the video port and the monitor? The dongle would then give the pre-HDCP monitor the capability of receiving HD video that requires HDCP.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Score one for the little guy!
And by "little guy" I mean "multinational media conglomerate."
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
And thus prompting people to search for ripped/pirated HD content that is free of HDCP. Brilliant!
You mean I'll have to turn on my TV to watch shows?!?! Oh the humanity!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
HDCP is required for digital inputs. If you're using a VGA cable you'll be fine today and tomorrow.
They're trying to close the digital-digital gap, analog will still work.
And no, you won't be able to tell the difference between an HDMI/digital connection to a high quality monitor, and a VGA connection.
..until it shows up on Bittorrent an hour later.
C'mon, there has to be someone in Hollywood smart enough to figure out that copy protection this draconian is going to seriously encourage cracking? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to do everything possible to make it easier for their paying customers to get to their content rather than making it more irritating, unreliable, and expensive?
Oh, right. Oh well, not much worth watching anyhow.
Good going slashdot editors! I guess all that matters is who sees what when.
What is humor if not pain tempered by time?
Market forces won't let this one stick. People need lee-way, something that DRM systems don't do, so they are forced to go around them. Once that's done, they keep going around them.
--Mike--
Capitalism sees Capitolism as damage, and routes around it
They didn't have to put DRM in iPod.
But they did.
Steve Jobs will again be the great enabler for DRM.
Next time it's video.
Just about every single DVI enabled LCD display shipping for the last two years has HDCP already. Wake up and smell the cofee....
Component video might not be protected. HDMI/DVI transmit digitally, which is what has content providers worried. Since component is analog, and because of the large install base you noted, it might not require HDCP. (pure speculation)
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
...most people won't be able to watch protected HD content on their computers.
--
And when people realize this, they simply won't BUY protected HD content, and it'll end up like DVD-RAM. They're shooting themselves in the foot -- it's that simple.
What's DVD-RAM? Is that like a Frisbee?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I certainly sympathize, but you do realize that all (legal) DVD players already have this property...
Mike
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
Actually, I was just considering not watching TV or movies any more, reading a good book and using my computer to access a few forums and do some writing. The kind of output coming out of the entertainment industry is so bad nowadays that I can't imagine anyone putting any effort into protecting it, or stealing it. It's all crap, and it isn't worth consideration. The whole battle seems like a bunch of silly bastards battling over who gets to eat the most shit from the dungpile.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
MS is dependant on hardware people and hardware people don't mind having MS push out another crappy OS that they can call 'superiour (... but only with our expensive new hardware)'.
Remember the uber-pointless Winkey keyboards? Keyboard manufacturers are still kissing Mickeysofts feet for that treat. The Monitor vendors will *all* jump to this.
Let's hope Apple plays it's own game in this. That way we at least have a little competition.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
So, we'll just have to settle for unprotected HD content, then?
Isn't this just another instance of the entertainment industry not getting it? They're sabotaging their own business. How many people do they expect to be interested in downloading HD content? Probably not that many. Now, how many of those people do they expect to go and shell out an obscene amount of money for a new HDCP-compliant monitor that offers no additional benefit to the end user?
Essentially, what they're doing here is presenting consumers with a rather lopsided decision: spend more money on a monitor just to have the privelage of spending more money to view paid-for HD content that may or may not actually materialize, or don't spend any extra money and continue to download what you want off of BitTorrent/eMule/usenet.
Tough call, eh?
It's great. High quality video. I can even record my own stuff right off TV!
I heard of this upcoming thing called DVD... supposed to be a lot better than VHS, but it will require an entirely new player! I can't even play my existing tapes on this new hardware!
It's crap if you ask me! Down with these evil companies trying to force me to buy a new player!
Remember the limitation here is on computer monitors. I don't plan to watch Blu-Ray discs on my computer, I've got a dedicated HDTV in front of my couch for that. Most HiDef TVs (plasmas, LCD, DLP, CRT) have supported HDCP for about 2 years. So unless you have one of the early ones with only component connections, you should be fine.
If it is something that has to be visible to the human eye, your DRM can be broken.
If it is something that has to be audible to the human ear, your DRM can be broken.
Welcome to the age of computers, have a nice day.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The whole point of HDCP is that there is *nothing* between the "protected" content and the output device that could be used to retrieve the decrypted signal. Your dongle could be connected to some sort of recorder instead of the monitor, making the end-to-end encryption useless.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
IANAL, but Section 117 of the U.S. Copyright code would seem to permit circumvention if its needed to use some software on a particular machine.
To avoid lawsuits (HA!) the creator of any software that lets non-HDCP machines use HDCP media would need to make double sure that they don't even breath a word about infringing uses.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Lookit that yoyo, trying to watch content.
...
He's got a box and hooked up his HDCP.
Tries to turn it on and all he gets is static.
So he throws it back in his hovercar.
refrain I want my, I want my, I want my HDCP.
I want my, I want my, I want my HDCP.
He can't use it to watch his microwave oven.
It won't show Showgirls in wide-screen full DPI.
But he don't worry cause he's really stupid.
So he shalls out another $1000 for an extra day.
refrain I want my, I want my, I want my HDCP.
I want my, I want my, I want my HDCP.
Can't watch anime from Japan cause he's in North America, can't watch Italian soap operas if he's in Germany, can't even watch the Olympics in High Def, cause they won't let you see the CBC in DC
refrainI ditched my, I ditched my, I ditched my HDCP.
I ditched my, I ditched my, I ditched my HDCP.
.
.
.
can you say refund?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
There is no way in hell I will ever replace a perfectly good monitor just so I can watch their precious HD garbage. No way. No how! I don't need their stinking HD if that's the game they want to play.
... since DVD-RAM (like 802.11a) is actually useful. It's just not common, but it's still out there and definitely has it's niche for people who want the most reliable read/write optical media.
;)
I think the example you're looking for is DivX, which is no longer of any use to anybody, since the authentication server has been offline for years... all of the disks are just coasters now
Hmm, I guess the screen captures are going to be a viable option for this content, with the newer small digital camcorders you should be able to capture decent vids. (not that I would do that of course)
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
The end result is that when Windows Vista ships [...], most people won't be able to watch protected HD content on their computers.
By the time Windows Vista will be shipped, all of us will enjoy direct neural connections...
Sorry, but I can get them out easily as the iPod simply mounts as a drive and I can copy what I like out. Yes the filenames are obscured but since the ID3 data lives in teh file it's a moot point. 3rd party tools just make it a little handier.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In a sense it sounds like they're planning to do that. They realize that they can't protect the low-def signal with existing hardware setups.
If they figure that over time people will be buying mostly the new high-def hardware, they could well be planning to stop prosecuting people for infringing the copyright on the low-def signal. They're not going to "give it away" in the sense of making it easy for you, but it might no longer be worth their effort to stop file sharing of the low-def video feed.
Their efforts are always concentrated on what will make them money. If there are only a few people downloading the low def signal, it won't be worth the effort to sue those who do. That's not making it legal, but it does "decriminalize" it somewhat.
Which would be funny, actually: they'd be figuring that content which is perfectly tolerable today might be unacceptable tomorrow. If it falls out as I'm suggesting, they'll figure that you might as well download the low-def version, because they hope people will spend the money (via cable TV or DVDs or TiVo download or whatever) to buy the real thing.
It's actually an excellent question for Slashdotters of various stripes. Would you be willing to settle for it in low-def, but with the restrictions removed, or would you commit whatever money it takes to get the real thing? (The third option of course is to go to the trouble of breaking the DRM and getting the best of both worlds, at the cost of inconvenience. The answer presumably depends on how inconvenient it is.)
The popular Dell 20" wide screen (2005FPW) is already a victom of this. The monitor's native resolution is 1680x1050 and so it should be able to render 720p without a problem. However, you can't get HDTV content from either digital cable or directv receivers via DVI. Currently, going analog via Component In will get you HD, but unfortunately the monitor only offers DVI, VGA, S-Vid, & Composite. I use a Component to VGA transcoder, but the solution is neither cheap nor elegant.
Sadly, PS/2 was yet another victim of USB, which doesn't care what you plug into it, the electrical slut.
Making things easy for the consumer doesn't buy as many ivory backscratchers.
..the minute a window pops up and tells them that they have to upgrade their monitor to play the content at full resolution "because it is incapable of playing the content". Because that would be an outright lie.
I hope they tell the truth though. "We're sorry, your monitor is capable of playing this digital content, but Hollywood has decided not to allow it because they can't be sure you aren't copyng the video."
Btw, is anyone else tired of those farking FBI warnings at the start of every DVD? Who they hell do they think they're stopping with those things? It's so annoying!
Yes the iPod supports a weakend form of DRM.
However it's not at all required. If you burn CD's yourself, you will never see DRM in the iTunes iPod chain.
Even with protected songs you can simply burn to a CD and re-rip lossless if you like.
I would also like to add that Apple currently sells music videos through ITMS that have NO DRM of any sort. They are unprotected mp4 files that I can play in VLC. That points the way to thier thinking on video and is a step to acceptance of lax or even possibly no-existant DRM for other video on the computer.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Blu-Ray and other "protected" devices will display content over analog component pathways, however, it will be down-rezed to 480p. So that shiney new HDTV you just bought at Circuit City (some models even today still don't support HDMI or DVI/HDCP) may display 1080i or 720p, but good luck getting an HD signal to that device. We're talking millions of consumers here, who may not even understand that they've been screwed out of thousands of dollars because of the entertainment cartel. This touches upon anti-trust issues, entertainment / consumer electronics industry collusion, and the corporate killing of "fair use" provisions in copyright law. Bad, bad stuff.
Yeah - I'm pissed. I understand the entertainment industry's desire to prevent broadscale copyright violations and offshore piracy, but sticking it to end consumers will neither prevent organized copyright crime nor will it help sell HD content to pissed off consumers. Like I said... Hollywood and the electronics industry deserves an organized boycott (because we know neither Democrats or Republicans will do a damn thing about it). --M
Which company makes millions from selling DRM'd media?
Which company has repeatedly sued their own FanBois for publishing 'leaks'?
Microsoft sucks ass, but Apple has done things over and over again that people would crucify Microsoft for doing.
For fucks sake, they sell music online that only works on their own player then CHANGE the DRM for the specific resion to break people's software and hardware that they don't approve of!
The only difference between Apple and Microsoft is is that one is almost infinately more successfull then the other one at gaining market dominance.
They are both run by pricks, and would happily screw over their own customers if they thought it would give them a advantage.
'oh look Apple will let you burn a certain amount of cds from music that you already paid for'.. and guess what? So does Microsoft's DRM they used in WMV 9.
This is why I like Free Software, if it wasn't for orginizations like GNU,FSF, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Linux, etc etc I wouldn't give a shit about software or computers at all.
I don't want to put up with Apple's shit any more then I put up with Microsoft's.
Oh, and BTW, since I am on freak-out-rant-mode:
Fuck Hollywood movies. Fuck RIAA.
I'll buy their stuff if it's good, but I don't even want to steal 95% of the crap they put out and they definately aren't going to get a thin dime out of me if they impliment a fraction of what they currently seem to want. They can shove their DRM up were the Sun don't shine.
microsoft is incorporating a lot more than HDCP restriction requirements in their winhec standards. They are also building in encrypted "protected media path", allowing revocation of components in vista based PC's and requiring hardware and driver based DRM for "windows logo testing approval"
They are also requiring a new form of device ID which is designed to prevent any emulation without contacting the emulated device's originator
I tried to give slashdot the heads up on this over a month ago and, like a fellow poster, my story was rejected.
There's a reason Vista took so long to develop, and that reason has nothing to do with consumer-centric design
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I think the people that won't buy it because of restrictions should refrain from simply downloading, copying or watching such otherwise protected media.
For one, anyone that simply downloads infringing copyrighted material doesn't have a leg to stand on if they complain about companies infringing on the GPL. I would call it hypocrisy if a person advocates protecting the GPL yet infringes on copyright themselves, because the same copyright laws that protect the GPL also protect the media cartels.
It would reduce the claim to blame that the AA's have that piracy reduces profits, if no one is pirating.
Excellent news for the *IAA's of the world, piracy will finally be a thing of the past!
OK, they won't sell much but at least it's not pirated and thats what counts. :)
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
The problem is once they have this in place, they'll even further ratchet up copyright infringement laws, to the point that people will be afraid to host or even download such content, for fear of jail/economic oblivion.
nothing left to lose ... [copy completed]
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The above post is an editorial, the poster cannot and will not be held responsible for all or in part for it's contents
I have stopped buying DVD's due to the nature of content locking, I don`t have a video player. I only watch films that 'I want to see' at the cinema, and even then - if I miss them - so what.
I am starting to think the more barriers the industry puts into place, the more likely it will be that I will go and find a story printed in ink on the page of a book. !!Simple!!
I am looking forward to the time when I can switch the TV off, it can no longer receive a signal, I can then go back to good old fashioned entertainment and conversation.
Lets take a look at this...
The DVD will only play on certain hardware, locked by region, the hardware will only work with certain CPUs tat have suitable hardware trust algorithms, the video stram will only go over encrypted wires/protocols, the image can only be presented on displays that can decrypt the image.
Why...
Because the movie business is big business, and they are trying to find ways of making MORE money.
Time to switch off and bring it all back into the real world. My general purpose PC will never again play a video, I refuse to be drawn into this spiral of expensive hardware at no practical gain to myself as an end user.
It's a dupe!!
-gjr
I doubt very much that will be (legally) in any OSS drivers.
Legal? Bah. With the hundreds of thousands of laws on the books, everyone single one of us can hardly go about the day without breaking some legal code. Not getting caught is the more important part of life.
And before any of you throw a stone how many of you have never broken a law? speeding? not paid taxes on time? avoided sales tax? used laundry detegent for any other reason than washing clothes? had any other sexual position other than missionary in most of the Southern States? Let's not talk about tax evasion and various other legal code things...
But the point of the matter is that these corporations are trying to make you believe that "Illegal = Morally Wrong", but in truth it's them making their profit margins into written law. With that in mind there are no moral obligations to adhear to any injust laws that do not benefit fellow man, but I might add the best route is not to fight the law, but just ignore it and find to avoid getting caught.
Hey, it worked for prohibition.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I've visited the movie theatre once in the past 6 months, I have rented zero DVDs during that time period and I haven't bought a single movie on DVD either. I'll admit that I did buy a television show box set, though. I couldn't care less about the protection applied to media and content if I don't care about the content itself. I won't watch it with DRM and I won't watch it without because it's crap either way!
It's like locking monopoly money in a giant vault.
~Someday, I hope to be an aspiring author.
That's fine, but it doesn't really negate the fact that millions and millions of other consumers still seem to get something out of watching movies.
If they didn't, you wouldn't see today's actors still getting huge salaries and entire cable channels dedicated to keeping tabs on what "so and so" in the industry likes to wear on Saturdays or eat for dinner (E! television).
So why would this affect those of us more interested in such things as computers? Well, just wait until people buy their new computers and movies and can't figure out how to make them play properly. Guess who they're going to come to with questions and hopes of a "work around" solution.
Sounds like a great plan, but I'm slightly confused. Wheres the Profit! step? Also its slashdot protocol that Good Plans (TM) for profit in big business follow three simple steps. You've shot rather long and failed to call "FORE!".
:)
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
Well, at least I won't be one of them. The entertainment industry has become so unentertaining, and ultimately vindictive (on all sides) that I could care less. I'll let the millions battle over vapid nonsense by overpaid performers. I've really become too jaded to care anymore.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You don't think all the elite $3000 30" Cinema HD Display owners aren't going to bitch when they find out they're getting a degraded image?
Look. They control the media / entertainment industry and will use TV and Cable News to propagate their message. They have huge war-chests for campaign contributions. They essentially control access to policy and the consensus opinion management. There's no way to change that fact without a sea-change in anti-trust law, as in Teddy Roosevelt's days with the collapse of the Gilded Age.
Boycott is the only effective counter to their power (even given the problems you present) because to do nothing is even less effective as a consumer strategy to corporate abuse of power. Or can you recommend a better alternative? --M
Or does this not work?C DA1.ASP
http://www.digitalconnection.com/Products/Video/D
I was planning on getting one to allow use of the PS3 with my analog CRT projector.
Princess Leia: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
You're either 90 years old or an arrogant prick. Which is it?
don't buy this HD content, it will mindless sequels and TV show remakes anyway. And don't worry, Joe Idiot won't figure out that there's a new movie format that's the same size as a DVD for 8-10 years, so your average person won't be signing up anyway.
I'm banking on Blu-ray and HDDVD failing regardless. There will be three formats that look like the same size disc, this will be a hoot.
I think the writer overlooked the fact that this will be impossible to implement in the short term. Many have said it here, no one is going to replace and expensive monitor or TV set with HDCP just to watch the new content. Content providers will have tough time getting any market penetration. Moreover, broadband is not fast enough today to deliver HD content in any rate. Those things will be here but won't reach a good saturation until after 2010. When it does, content providers will start using these features. So, I guess they are just putting the framework in place now so it will ready for when HD content becomes mainstream.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Its not really hypocritical. The people who download movies and want the GPL to be respected are asking no more of software developers than they are of movie studios. They want both to distribute their works freely, so I do not see a hypocrisy here.
You need the driver that authenticates to the display. I doubt very much that will be (legally) in any OSS drivers.
There is one very easy answer to this, boycot any product that is DRM restrictive, costly or plans to blackmail the users into spending $$ beyond what they have already. I figure the adoption will be slow.
Myself, there are lots of technology I avoid for this very reason. OSS is already on most of my PCs. If they want to sell me media, it had better play on Linux/UNIX.
How do I run apple formated songs (not the mp3s) on my Linux box?
A quick calculation shows 1280x720 60fps at 24 bit color is 1.5Gbps. I don't know about you, but my computer cannot possibly capture that. I don't know of a single hard drive or RAID system that can write 190MB/s that does not cost as much as my Nissan 350z. To buy hardware to copy this stuff is just as dumb as buying a Toyota Hybrid to save money on Gas. (10 years at 15k miles per year to make up the cost difference from a civic).
I'll just have to watch my HD stuff on my T.V. and use my computer for useful stuff.
erin go bragh!
HD DVD technologies will probably take years to go anywhere anyway, regardless of DRM or no DRM.
Why was the CD a big success? It offered enormous convenience over the existing forms (records and tapes) and an enormous leap in quality - cracks and pops gone. Wow and flutter gone from tapes. No rewinding necessary.
Why was DVD a big success fairly quickly? It wasn't just the improved quality over VHS. Mostly it was the ease of use. A small disc that doesn't have to be rewound, doesn't snag, doesn't have tracking that goes out of alignment, and the quality was much much better.
But for most people, DVD is good enough. A new format will offer no extra convenience, and will cost a lot to buy - certainly for a fair while (high quality displays have always been expensive). Therefore, high definition disc formats will probably be relegated for years, perhaps decades, to the audio/videophile segment - a very small fraction of the market. Just like LaserDisc really. For everyone else, normal DVDs are cheap and good enough.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
For some reason a Boston HDTV Party comes to mind.
:)
Capitalism is just like Democracy: a majority of idiots put abusers of power into power by buying what they were selling.
It's a system of the people and in order for it to work some people have to lose. Now, who wants to draw straws?
One thing I get from the story, moreso from the story submission, and again with many comments on this topic is that some people seem to have a pathologic need to perceive Apple as Evil. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say "As Evil", as in "As Evil as..." (fill in the blank).
This way of thinking ignores the fundamental approaches that Apple and that Other Company have taken regarding DRM, and how they differ. Jobs has publically stated that he perceives media piracy as an educational issue that cannot be solved technologically - so he managed to finagle a compromise with the music industry that tried out a form of DRM far weaker than others around (which is of course now the standard approach) and show that even when consumers have the chance to pretty easily steal music, they will do the right thing if it's easy enough.
The Other Company has however fully embraced whatever DRM the music and video industry thought as appropritae - even though they are large enough that you think they could dictate terms the other way. Having that much power to make a postiive change in the industry and failing to do so is, in my mind, a far greater sin than brokering a compromise that involves a weak form of DRM and gets an industry used to the notion it might be able to trust people to some extent.
How many people know that right now, on ITMS, you can buy music videos and they are downloaded in an unprotected MP4 file? I can watch them in VLC after I extract them from iTunes. I can transfer them whever I like in fact. I'm sure the situation with the next gen DVD players will be tricky but I could honestly see Apple somehow working a deal that would allow full resolution digital output even on non HDCP monitors. In fact you could argue that allowing such display is of rough equivilence to the iPod DRM - it's not impossible to break but hard enough for the average user. Not just anyone can actually record a raw DVI feed. Having video cross via DVI (along with perhaps some form of prevention from scren scrapers) is enough of a deterrent for copying.
I am not saying Apple is the end all and be all and can do no wrong. I am saying the approach they appear to be taking is far more reasonable than the Other Company, and has been all along from the first moment the concept of DRM arose. Apple has been driving where DRM really goes with music, and there is no reason to think it might not be possible with Video since that industry seems as clueless about how to make consumers happy and actually buy things as the music industry.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
http://product.samsung.com/cgi-bin/nabc/product/b2 c_product_detail.jsp?eUser=&prod_id=PO24FSSBS/
If you just google "HDMI DVI converter" you will find several places selling you one for under $50. Cheaper than getting a new monitor.
This sig is just as redundant as the rest of this posting
That'd be somthing like This then
Thanks. I have a brand new sig :)
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
The way I understand it, this DRM-to-the-monitor idea is reliant on a Windows device driver that enforces it. I would imagine this will require a "signed" MS-approved driver, but it's fairly trivial from what I understand to spoof such a signed driver in current versions of Windows, and probably will be in future versions as well. So all you'll need is a slightly modified and fake-signed device driver that claims to enforce the DRM requirements, but doesn't.
Two possible outcomes from this:
1. What I was talking about doesn't work, everybody gets pissed off and very few people buy new HD content or devices.
2. It works like a charm, and enough people do it that the MPAA/RIAA uses it as the basis for a round of DMCA lawsuits pitting anti-circumvention against rights of fair use. Like watching stuff that you've paid for on hardware that's capable of playing it.
I will say this, as well: if mainstream monitor vendors add this capability to all of their products, which they probably will, it's going to be very difficult for Apple not to follow suit. But I'll still call them a pansy if they cave on this issue.
"There is no night so forlorn, no mood so bleak, that it cannot be infused with pleasure by tender meat..." - R.W. Apple
I'm not sure you picked up the point that I'd have to buy new hardware to view this content legally.
Here's my thing: if they paid for the hardware, I'd be much much more likely to aquire the content legally. I rent ( and buy ) DVDs all the time without copying them or using them illegally. However, they're going to just piss me off by downsampling content that really should display just fine on my current hardware, even though I've paid for it, just because they don't trust me not to copy it?
I've already been told I'm not trusted. What incentive, other than avoiding prosecution, do I have to act as though I should be trusted?
I agree, in a world where nobody violates copyright, there'd be no hypocrisy. But a company abusing GPL actually was able to use the GPL code; if I *bought* an HD-DVD, I'd like to be able to *view* it's HD contents, thanks... without buying a new monitor, if mine is hi-res enough. I'll either work out how to make it viewable, or not buy the HD content... and since I've been put in this situation by the media companies, I might just be tempted to copy some already-DRM-free HD content if I come across it, just to avoid the hassle involved in purchasing it legitimately. I wasn't the one who made it harder to do the right thing...
I'm not saying you don't have a good and valid point; you do, we should all respect copyright, but... I have limits. Copyright should be reasonable. This whole "you must have HDCP monitors" thing goes well beyond my idea of what is reasonable. A consumer backlash is predictable and in my way of thinking very justified.
All they have to do is ensure that most people can't easily make unauthorized copies, while not pissing off the "legitimate" consumer.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Doesn't it seem that this will be easy for pirates to bypass? OF course all this is assuming that the major pirates don't have insiders in the industry that will give them the movies before they are even released. Once windows says the monitor is "approved" you are telling me there is nowhere in the chain where it would be impossible to tap in and get the unencrypted data? Hell, if worst comes to worst, I'm betting that you could put an hd camcorder in front of an HD monitor and film it and have it look good enough for people trading files online.
So what is this really about? It isn't about security at all, but it is about pissing off customers and making them buy new hardware.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
1. Don't buy it. It's all crap anyways.
/giggle comes in. Lets assume you absolutely have to have your movies/TV shows. Lets assume you absolutely have to have it in HD.
Yes, it is possible to go through life without TV. I do, everyday, and I'm not some kind of weird recluse or anything. I have friends, and a girlfriend *gasp* (yes, she thinks slashdot is super-nerdy), and I spend a lot of time playing video games. That's my replacement for crap TV.
Movies? I go and see them at the theater. Yes, I'd like to watch more at home. But I can't buy DVDs that I can do what I like with, so I don't buy them, period.
2. Pirate it. This is where the
You can either a) use a spatzbox (linked elsewhere in this conversation) to convert the HDCP content to HD component analog or digital DVI, or b) grab the HD-DVD that was burned unprotected using said spatzbox in some copyright-loving area like, say, Hong Kong.
The up market leather goods brands (Gucci and above) have been trying to stop pirate manufacturing of their products. In Iran, you can get any software you could possibly want for $1 a disk.
Do you *really* think that the MPAA will be able to stop this? What magic powers do they have the all the other companies don't have? It doesn't matter if the Blue-Ray or HD-DVD content protection can be broken. All you need is a HD-DVD/Blue-Ray player, and a spatzbox, in order to produce 1 digital master, HD, no content protection.
Its already avaliable!
Then it'll go through the usual distribution channels. Wholesale pirates->streets of hong kong->american tourists->usenet/limewire and CO.
And it's only going to get better and better as internet connections get faster. Think Windows Vista is going to DRM its way out of that? Nonsense-> You're forgetting that these will be unencrypted streams.
The only thing that this nonsense does is economically punish those who do the valid thing and actually purchase the disks.
For those like me, who will abstain, it does nothing.
For those like many others, who will pirate, it does nothing.
And I see *nothing* wrong with pirating. Copyright is an economic right (not a system of ethics) designed to promote the arts and sciences. Once someone abuses Copyright (like, say, by eliminating fair use/controlling playback through the DMCA), they are actively stopping the promotion of the arts and sciences. As I see it, the *only* reason to respect copyright is the promotion of the arts and sciences, and once they stop doing that, they forfeit their government-sponsored monopoly.
That's all it is, you know. Copyright was not handed down by God to Moses as a command. The Buddha did not tell us about Copyright, and evolution did not cause Copyright to evolve as inherented human behavior. Copyright is a government-sponsored monopoly, established for the *sole* purpose of promoting/protecting artistic and scientific economic activies.
And contrary to what you learned in grade school civics, what the government tells you is not always the definition of 'good and right'. Don't call me a deviant--> If I was a weird, social outcast, and the only one who thought like this, then 50 million Americans (sayeth the RIAA) would not be participating in illegal P2P activities. While those Americans may not directly communicate their beliefs they way I am able to explain my own, it is most likely because they simply haven't though about it at any length, and if they had, would agree with me.
But, I don't bother to pirate. Instead of paying attention to one-way content, I prefer to interact with two-way content, and I see enough value in that interaction that I purchase it. I vote with my dollar--> I buy things (read *games*) that I think are good. And between Guildwars, Half-Life 2, Eve Online, and World of Warcraft, I have my hands full for the indefinite future.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Or maybe, I'll just watch all the old unprotected content that I have lying around. Heck, maybe I'll just read a book. They still let us do that right?
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
If nothing conforms to the standard, it doesn't mean the equipment is bad, it means the standard is bad. It's just like making the video games that require newer faster video cards. God forbid they should actually just program better...
i've been reading this thread and lamenting the fact that it's going to get really bad and i'm going to have to either fork out the money or resort to breaking their DRM. then i remembered it's been over a year since hollywood or the music industry has produced anything worth paying for let alone stealing... sad really.
Wake me up when the entertainment industry produces something entertaining again.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I believe SACD and DVD-Audio have yet to be cracked like CSS was. Probably because they're still not very popular. Certainly isn't of any interest to the warez scene that distributes music in MP3 format. Give me 24-bit FLACs or give me death!
LOAD "SIG",8,1
As long as this is limited to next gen DVD, who gives a rat's a$$? I tried to watch a DVD right after I got a DVD drive for my PC and suddenly realized that my TV is a lot bigger than my monitor and it has a remote.
Mike
If everybody had HDCP monitors there would be less demand for independent films that don't subscribe to that DRM system. If you can only watch Bruckheimer's latest blockbuster at 320x200 or alternatively some independent, thoughful documentary in all its HD glory people may choose the latter.
What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
http://houndwire.com
That would make a great t-shirt.
-Xen
this could be a great way to be sure to not sit through two hours of mindless idiocy. a world where you cannot render tom cruise is a much better place.
-
Why bother protecting DVI? Have any prior DRM systems been attacked through DVI?
-
About key revocation (part of HDCP afaik): What is the benefit of being able to revoke keys known to be compromised?
-
A little revocation scenario: Company X sells 10 million HDCP-enabled devices. Someone devises a crack that theoretically compromises the key on all those devices (e.g. by finding a flaw in X's key generation). Media companies consequently block all 10 million devices. Does X have to replace 10 million devices for free, or are 10 million customers stuck with a useless device?
Bonus question: why would I want this crap? I tend to like movies for their storytelling, and am quite happy with the quality that DVDs offer me. If this stuff ever takes of, I'll just be happily buying used DVDs from suckers who upgrade their collection to HD.No, because cracking CSS was easier. And chances are the next generation will be cracked in a similar manner. I have not yet seen any DRM research suggesting otherwise. But any measure against hacking makes sense only if you make all other possible attacks equally difficult. (Why have a steel door if there is an open window?) Why the inconvenience for your customer, if you know it will have almost no positive effect?
Yes, you can prevent a hacked player from playing back a legally purchased copy on a unprotected device. But apparently most piracy today comes from P2P networks. How will you be able to tell which key was used to decrypt a DRM-free copy that shows up on a P2P-network? Release groups would probably just keep their cracked key secret. (Watermarks? Not robust against removal afaik.) Revocation can neither prevent spreading of content to P2P, nor playback of unprotected files obtained from P2P.
If you sell HDCP-enabled products, make sure that you know your cryptography very, very well. Or you might go out of bussiness soon.
January is a down month anyway for movies. Why not take advantage of it and make the squeeze felt. If this is implemented, we organize a no-movie January where no one rents a movie form the video store or goes to see a film in the theaters.
Drop the gross 20% more than usual in January and people in Hollywood will sit up and take notice.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Another reason to not upgrade to any new OS (except a Linux distro of some sort).
Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.
This technology is already in the latest version of windows media center that runs on Windows XP.
You'd never know it though.
All it does is downsample the content, it doesn't prevent playback.
There isn't much content out there that is flagged to trigger this stuff.
There are no HD DVDs on the market yet. (I think the rollout of HD DVD is this winter)
Almost no broadcast content is flagged to use this.
The average person really can't tell on a computer monitor if somethign is downsampled.
The only people that will be impacted by this are the enthusiast crowd, and they shell out for the latest and greatest anyway.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
DRM implemented in the hardware at every level will be the inevitable end to this mess. We should at least be able to make this hardware work for us.
If every input, output, and storage device could be guaranteed cryptographically secure by a trusted 3rd party, it would be of great benefit to a lot of people. I would love to be able to walk into an internet cafe in Bolivia and be able to log onto a mysterious computer and be able to do some online banking without any fear of privacy, identity, or monetary theft. All I need is a logon system immune to shoulder-snooping, and secure communication all the way from the keyboard back to Citibank. There has to be a way to do that using the same hardware as these DRM schemes.
Although I have a basic understanding of the importance of these issues and how they effect our society, I am not affected personally, because I don't have a television. Of course as the world becomes more and more connected to the internet, this will become a problem for everyone. When my toaster oven keeps me from making a copyrighted recipe I will start writing letters to congress. For now, I will focus my limited lobbying time, donation dollars, and volunteer time to the usual social issues.
HDCP and HDMI are not the same thing. HDCP is an interface which is a proposed successor to DVI and also includes audio. HDCP is an DRM scheme which is compatible with DVI and HDMI. Converting DVI to HDMI is relatively simple as the pins in DVI all have direct equivalents in HDMI (at least, the digital ones do, not sure about the analogue), much as converting DVI to VGA was easy.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
boycotting and/or stealing and/or disabling the DRM on any such protected content anyway.
I just plan on not buying Windows Vista. The Windows OS I have now does everything I need it to do (aka: play games), and for everything else theres Linux. It'll be a long time before game developers abandon earlier versions of windows, and if they don't, that's ok, I've always got my trusty consoles.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
The end result is that when Windows Vista ships (and Apple's next OS), most people won't be able to watch protected HD content on their computers.
Then people who want to watch HD on their computers won't buy it, and publishers that don't use that kind of protection will move in and make a profit. Media companies are not evil; they are greedy (the two can be similar, but it's worth keeping the difference in mind).
Anyway, how does protection built into the monitor change anything as far as unauthorised copying of the files? Unless you stick the DVD (or whatever) straight into the monitor, it still has to go through playback software, which means it'll probably be cracked (and therefore easily converted to formats that play anywhere) less than a week after it's released.
RMN
~~~
Also, most people won't be able to watch HD content on their computers anyway. You need a monitor that supports 1920x1080 resolution for true HD. I have a $440 19" Viewsonic monitor that's served me well for the past few years, and it's still better than what most people have, but it only supports 1600x1200.
One thing that piss me the most about everything HD these days, is all the mislabeling and almost fraudulent usage of HD label on every piece of hardware out there.
:)) ), with new connections and fix all that sub-resolution crap along the way, I say, GO for it. Because right now, I'm not going to buy an XGA LCD TV labeled as HDTV display, no thanks!
EDV is NOT HDTV, yet, if you are not a geek or have basic knowledge, it seems to be "similar" when you are purchasing a TV.
HDTV LCD monitor, HDTV projector.... yes, because it does 854 (or something close) by 480P, it's considered HDTV? c'mon. Well check every HDTV projector or TV display closely, specs-wise, and you'll see a lot of 1280x720P and/or less. Not "true" HDTV a la 1920x1080i (or you could debate that 720P has a clearer picture, and 1080i has more resolution but flickers, this is another story, but something's for sure: 480P for me is NOT HD... it's called NTSC + progressive scan, or EDV, yet, some sells this as "HDTV"-capable device because they can take HDTV signal and rape it down to 480P).
now if HDTV could be 2 SPECIFIC, HIGH resolution formats, (one interlace, one progressive) to fit any type of output where one or the other could be better suited (P for computer display, i for tv/specific hardware (I'm thinking of stereoscopic display with interlaced inputs
And those damn DVI cables, DVD-I, DVD-D, yadi yada... one cable, no potential errors, thank you!
You can complain as much as you want about buying overpriced yet already obsolete hardware, but if you have a true 1080i or 720p display that lives to the "real" HD specs, you'll be able to afford the converter box (there will be adapters for sure) and make good use of your gear for another 3-4 years. For the others, this should be a lesson into more careful knowledge before buying stuff.
3-4 years sounds good, OLED HDTV display, should be awesome. Because current LCD TVs aside from a few minor exeptions, it's nothing but disgusting color/contrast/gamut-wise for any video purist.
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
Look back on 1999 when decss was written, anyone could play DVD's on anything, and there were a lot of high profile court cases with celebrity programmers testifying.
Since then, HD content has been distributed in encrypted WMV and many other encrypted formats and no-one has even tried to crack those.
Part of the problem is there aren't any hackers anymore. The only guys who even care about the method of decrypting intellectual property are in India. Everyone else just wants to pay the fee and watch it.
Part of the problem is the culture is no longer obsessed with hacking PC's to play video. No-one wants to be able to play video on their PC or have complete control of intellectual property. The modern culture is to buy a commercial products to do that, pay for the intellectual property, and use it as it is intended.
The experience of playing intellectual property on the newest gadgets has made up for content protection. Having a snazzy media player or display has proven much more valuable to the modern hacker than defeating the encryption of the content.
The content industry has also proven that even if you can break encryption, you'll never be able to traffic it over the internet. They'll shut you down and arrest you so why bother with the encryption.
1999: That's the last time any hacker would gain access to an insanely great media upgrade or even care to.
With all the theory behind the principles that our economy is based on, we're still in deep shit. The people with power to drive the entertainment industry are just as stupid as most of the others. Their decisions are still based on the good old greed that drives the world.
In the forementioned business people are much much stupider then everywhere else and the reason is simple. This is a profitable business based on hits created by the only people that actually are smart. The profit is unavoidable and there are some stupid people that receive this profit. Until the digital age everything was stable and there was no event that could reveal this stupidity. With the advent of the digital the really greedy pieces of shit that climbed on the big pile, saw all this billion of $ they lose because people don't pay for everything they can get for free. With their little minds they made a simple calculus: If 1 woman can make 1 baby in 9 mounths => 9 women can make 1 baby in one mounth. The entertainment industry is unavoidably profitable and this is corrected by the laws of the equilibrium theory. The people that actually make the profit, being the only ones who can influence the system, are the ones who will kill this profit.
Everything is very simple, the system balances itself out. I would be more amazed if they managed to come out with something outrageously attractive for the guy who always watched "pirated" movies. There is one entity that worries me in this sense and it's name has something to do with very large numbers.
This is probably a stupid question, but it's still bothering me. Why can't we just emulate windows, pretending we have compliant hardware, and use some trivial method to grab the resulting video?
If not, what am i missing?
"73% of quotes on the Internet are made up" -Ben Franklin
I think those only work if the content is unencrypted. HDMI content isn't always encrypted you know. HDCP content would come out garbled and you'd be $50 poorer.
On my HDTiVo to view HD content. It was being output from my HDTiVo which was being output in 720p (native in the case of FOX and ABC, downconverted from 1080i in the case of CBS, NBC and others). The 2001FP is 1600x1200 and doesn't have HDCP. 1080i doesn't work well on the 2001FP because the 2001FP doesn't like interlaced input.
So, I think you're mistaken.
On an HDTiVo, if you try to view protected content on a non-HDCP monitor, it will say on the monitor "this content couldn't be displayed" or some such nonsense.
Except the HDTiVo only does this to channels with the broadcast flag set. And there are no channels with the broadcast flag set, except for one test channel.
At least that is what I understand.
So I think the problem is something else in your system, the lack of HDCP. I could be wrong, I haven't tried this in months and the HDTiVo software has changed recently, but I don't think it has changed.
(and it's "affected", just to be pedantic)
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
The correct statement is images in high definition format will not display.
And if thats your position, you eventually will never own a computer or another electronic device, because we all know that once it gets installed, it'll only get worse :).
I don't agree with it either, and I'll be one of the first to tip my hat to whoever cracks this, but the general consumer won't really care enough to make a fuss and get the studios to change. As long as it works reasonably well (read, even if it gets downsampled to 480p) they'll go for it,.
On the other hand who knows, maybe the average consumer will surprise me and when they find out that the studios are pulling this, they will boycott it. But I'm guesssing that their response will be "Oh, really?? That's sure nasty of them". And then they will continue to watch their downsampled movie :).
Just my $.02
"The boy is dangerous, they all sense it, why can't you?"
Once again, it's a system that will only be effective in causing problems for honest people. The pirates will use their hacked hardware to make protection-free copies, and everyone else will d/l them off bittorrent/usenet/wherever.
The person who already bought a nice HDTV or monitor on the other hand - hes screwed. Hes the guy who goes out and buys legitimate copies of movies, and buys the new hardware when it comes out. Hes the type of guy who keeps the content and hardware companies in profitable. And hes the one they're screwing over most - what a way to run a business.
I work in the movie business, and I am a fan of copyright protection -- it's a good thing. It lets movies happen.
But, I really worry about this new system, at least for the next ten years, as it will encourage the worst kind of piracy.
You see, here's the problem. People are not just going to drop $4,000 to replace their old big-screen HDTVs. Your best customers are not going to be able to see this new content. All boasting to the contrary above, I believe strongly that there will be no quick hack (as with DeCSS) that will unlock the content -- and unlike with DVD's the HD-DVD and BluRay systems are designed to have upgradeable encryption as time goes on. (Once DVDs were cracked, there was no way to fix it -- that won't be true of HD-DVD and BluRay). So, there will be NO WAY to view HD-DVD or BluRay at their native high-resolution without buying the new display.
Well, unless you download the movies off the 'net.
You see, the "protection" systems that are being designed will stop 99.99% of people from copying BluRay DVD's, but 0.01% is still way more than enough to put movies on the 'net.
It seems like this system will be worst possible alternative, encouraging people very strongly to pirate in the way that is most pernicious. Allowing people to play their own HD-DVD's in somewhat un"protected" ways is a much better long-term compromise, at least until HDCP TV's are the norm.
Thad Beier.
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
...given that information, a perfect analog signal is far better than a digital signal, since digital goes through two lossy conversions.
The trick is getting a perfect analog signal...
I bought this awesome VCR a while back... It's great. High quality video. I can even record my own stuff right off TV!
I heard of this upcoming thing called DVD... supposed to be a lot better than VHS, but it will require an entirely new television/monitor!
It's crap if you ask me! Down with these evil companies trying to force me to buy a new television/monitor!
You can make a DVD player work with a 20 year old TV, no sweat. This standard, on the other hand, obsoletes every display currently on the market.
More than 5 years ago Circuit City was selling a DVD format called DVIX, as I recall. I remember when I was looking for my first DVD player how hard the salesdrone tried to get me to buy a DVIX player. As I recall the "movies" were as little as $4 but could only be played on a DVIX player which had to be hooked up to a phone so the player could dial home and validate the disk. I looked at the restrictions and figured out that the system was an ugly grab for my wallet. It relied on a supposedly free system which would fail because it could not support itself. I didn't care for the idea that I could buy a movie and not be able to take it to my friends house to watch it together. DVD's were, I decided, a much better deal.
Long and short... DVIX and all it stood for died. Died hard. Died ugly. Died and left customers holding useless garbage that, AFAIK, they can no longer play. So much for trust. This is a very abbreviated description of DVIX I know; however, I believe I have the essential points more or less correct. To this day I have never bought anything in a Circuit City store. To me DVIX, it's completely dishonest representation of value and functionality, and Circuit City are irrevocably maligned together. And I didn't even get burned by them.
My son just learned that he cannot play Windows Media Player files on his new iPod. Some time ago I'd tried to him into ripping his CDs to MP3 using CDex. However, Microsoft made Windows Media Player so EASY to use. So my lazy, instant gratification, boy learned a hard lesson about DRM and industry standards. CDs, $85. Refurbished iPod, $200. Look on his face when he tried to rip the newest DRM protected Foo Fighters album he'd bought. Priceless!
So, what about the new methods of DRM? I believe everyone needs to take a deep breath. Step back. Relax. With DVIX, DRM was relatively new. It is not as new any more. The only hope for DRM in the entertainment industry is for Congress, et al in other countries, to enact laws requiring it. On the other hand I think the only hope for Congress is that they don't. The people are actually fairly slow to learn collectively and the world does seem to be changing pretty fast these days. However, collectively, given time, a majority of people will come to realize that they are being lied to and will assert their rights. And when they do? I believe all hell will break loose and both Congress and the entertainment industry will fall victim to an electoral enema.
Ehh, so is the way of the world;
Leopord (OSX 10.4)and Vista will no dobtedly support non-existant tech, all OS's did in some manner or another, especially Windows Versions.
If you've noticed, Windows tends to release around 4 or 5 years from the previous version, therefore it must be ready for those 5 years, hence the Support for HD content, but lack of Hardware Support.
As for Apple, they release more often, but they do work on things like this before then need to. OSX was designed to run on Intels, and only Leopord will ship on an "Mactel" .
It's just how it is, they need to be faster paced then Hardware becuase the hardware industry knows no bounds when it comes to support, if no-one supports it, they will eventually.
When i was learning my trade - a simple 800x600pix frameset was the norm.
Then frames where dead.
Then you should use % rather than pixels.
Then tables were hated and css was god.
Then xhtml and css2 was the aim.
Now you might as well watch the TV.
AM
Media companies are not evil; they are greedy
As you say, though, a lot of times it's hard to tell the difference.
The greediest thing a company could do is to prevent publishers from issuing unprotected shows, eliminating the competition you imagine would save us. And better yet: they will create MS-style deals where you can't get access to the one good show you want to watch without paying for three or four other really crappy shows. This would help cement the New New Media.
Think the government will step in and help the consumers? Of course it won't. It'll help pass laws and enforce patents -- and the next thing you know, we'll be paying a corporate tax just to own a TV, muchless see anything on it.
Ok, I have an idea: just don't watch TV!
Sounds good, but the truly greedy will find a way to force you to own one and to pay for it. Like you can't get this week's ID key that lets you buy food or get gas unless you pick it up by watching a certain show at a certain time. It just so happens that to get access to that show, you have to purchase licenses to access four other shows. You don't want to watch any of them, but you have to pay for five shows and actually have to watch one. Just to eat.
Sound like big-brother-inspired paranoia to you? It would to me too, but take a look at the actions of the mega-glomerates and tell me you don't see a trend.
And then let the greedy part of your imagination run just slightly wild.
You'll come up with the same kind of scenarios I have -- scenarios that seem, now, all too inevitable.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
This isn't going to work because CONSUMERS HAVE RIGHTS! Yes, we do, we can make one(1) backup copy for archival use, for when that HD-DVD of "Cowboy Neil goes to Vegas" gets watched so many times it ends up with more scratches than a scratch-off lottery ticket, so there has to be a legal way for us to make that legal backup copy. And time shifting, we can record something off the radio or tv for our own personal use and viewing at a later time.
Is it just me or is this getting out of hand?
Why not just make an HD cable subscription cheap enough for someone who can already afford a broadband connection. Since we know most Internet based "piracy" (ARRRRRG!) is done over broadband connections. If everyone is paying for it then there's no reason to "pirate" it. I just got a $20 tv card so do this the legal way, record the shows myself instead of downloading them the next day. DRMed monitors, what is this crap!? Unless Dell starts selling them cheaply someone is going to have a lot of very pissed off people to deal with. If they want to mess with software DRM, fine, but leave the hardware alone, what happens when this new "briliant" scheme fails miserably? A lot of people spent many thousands of dollars on new HD plasma tvs, what happens when they can't watch the HD-TV signal they're paying a few hundred a month for?
This is nothing more than someone's crusade to hold on to their monopoly on cable service and keep their price fixing legal and squeeze every last penny out of the paying customers who are trying to do everything the legal way.
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
fuck 'em
long live 10.4, G4/G5s, etc...
if nobody buys their product, or if the margins aren't what they were, they (the companies in question) will eventually revert to using methods more acceptable to the user.
(yes I understand that the average idiot lets a lot of things pass... but come on, do you think joe six-pack will actually allow himself to be told that he needs to spend more money to get the same kind of thing?)
I do computer repair, and I find that the average user doesn't want you to fix too much. They will, to some extent, live with spyware if it saves them some $$.
for a while people came in with... say a computer that doesn't boot... I'd get it to boot, and find it riddled with spyware... I'd take an extra half hour to get rid of the crap... when they see spyware/virus removal on the sheet they'll demand to have the price reduced... they are willing to sacrifice useablity if it saves them money.
so I don't see how these companies will get this kind of thing off the ground, god knows I won't spend the extra money for this.
Who says you are the customer? You?
The fact is, when we pay for "our" movies, we are really paying money to be advertised at in those movies.
You and I are not the customer, we are the product - the advertisers (who get to insert their cars, clothing, burgers, drinks, music, and other assorted detritus throughout the films) are the true customers. I would also wager that policy-makers are also customers, in that the "advertisement" in some movies is a form of propaganda to urge you to "think" in a particular way, one which allows them to push their agendas easier on the population of the world (and how do policy-makers push this agenda? Why, through the corporations they either own or influence, or who have bought into their ideas, who advertise in said movies in return for favors granted by policies - ahem - "laws").
The movie is just the vehicle upon which to deliver this pablum to the masses. It is simply television on a different medium and scale. It is mass insanity - not only is the boot stomping the face, but the owner of that face is paying the stomper to do so and screaming "Give me MORE!!!"
Sad, so depressing and sad...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Those DRM measures will do nothing to deter people who pirate video content commercially. It just isn't hard to hook up a high-speed A/D converter to a monitor (pirates don't have to worry about whether the monitor goes with their furniture, just whether it's easy to open and access) and reconstruct the video signal. The fact that they may get one generation of analog generation doesn't matter to them at all--one generation of degradation is basically invisible.
The whole DRM issue is a combination of greed, stupidity, and a desire for government control of everything. It won't protect the video, but it will let government turn lots more people into criminals. And for the privilege, we all have to pay for new monitors and video cards and all that. It's disgusting.
I'm still waiting to see whether we will be permitted to publish open, unprotected HD content; forbidding that would be the ultimate in government control and media monopolies.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
> It's all crap, and it isn't worth consideration.
Well at least you're not generalizing or anything...
I am a fan of copyright protection -- it's a good thing. It lets movies happen.
...
Only because you guys have the idea that a movie is a piece of "property," like it's a pair of shoes or something.
Copyright protection gives you the freedom to produce winning efforts like Mr. and Mrs. Smith and The Dukes of Hazzard. Nice work, there.
Maybe if someone got off his ass and came up with a business model that didn't try to shoe-horn scarcity into a medium that automatically creates plentitude
Nahhhh. We just need some new encryption. Yeah, that's it. And -- what was the name of that one '60s TV show about the talking car? My Mother, The Car, yeah! It's gold, box office gold. Oh, they did that one already? Has there been a sequel yet?
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
If a company or group of companies tries to force consumers to do things in a way they don't want, then another company or group of companies will move in to fill that void. Not out of the kindness of their hearts, but simply because they're greedy, too. That's the fundamental difference between being evil and being greedy. They're not out to screw you, they're just out to get rich (screwing you is just a side effect).
And some (Google and the BBC, for example) have realised that a good reputation can be worth more in the long run than higher profits.
Of course, with the amount of "sheeple" in some parts of the world today, I suspect a lot of people will just eat whatever they're fed (just look at MSIE - slow, insecure, buggy, etc. - most people use it because they're too dumb and too lazy to even download and try the alternatives).
RMN
~~~
Whether to infringe upon someone's copyright is far more complex than that. Free software licenses use copyright law to do something ethical -- allow users the freedoms they need to be good neighbors. Non-free licenses use copyright law to restrict users freedoms to share and modify, thus making users unable to help themselves or their neighbors.
There is also a tough position which isn't addressed by a view of copyright law which says that since the copyright holder's power can be used as they wish, it is sacrosanct or beyond question regardless of how it is used. If a friend asks you for a copy of a proprietary program that you don't have a license to share, you can either choose to abide by the law and not be a good friend by not sharing, or you can disobey the law and distribute a copy. This is not a position anyone should ever have to be in, hence free software.
The FSF's former executive director, Brad Kuhn, has a far better response for why people should not engage in copyright infringement of proprietary computer software without a license. At about 1h42m into the talk, he says that people should see the full costs to them for obtaining and using proprietary software. If you get the software without paying the license fee, you don't see the impact it has on you and others around you. You should not be shielded from the true costs of what proprietary software imposes on you.
Digital Citizen
eternal vigilance.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Amen to that! Believe it or not, there is even a history of it happening with large corporations - I am a Comcast subscriber, and heard an interview with one of the Comcast Bigwigs talking about On Demand, and how cool it was, and free, and easy, and blah blah blah. I figured they were talking blue sky, something in the future, but when I went home and looked at the menu - there it was! Dozens of free movies, more movies watchable from HBO and Shotime, many sereis, etc etc, all watchable as it on a DVD, and very user friendly and easy to use. And what did this feature cost me? Nothing beyond my normal cable bill. This is a corporation making it easy for the customer - this makes me want to stay with Comcast. This DRM shit makes me want to avoid this other shit like the plague. And no, I don't work for Comcast - I am just really impressed!
First Falcon-1 to orbit, then Falcon-9. Then I can die a happy man.
I think my screen can handle it...
When we get our 24x17" LCDs next spring, we'll get rid of the black bezels AND have a resolution of 7680x4096. Then, this "HD" nonsense will look like over-scaled garbage!
720p is "true" HD just as 1080i is.
Mmmmm... Spaghetti-Os...
Oddly enough, I wonder if this might actually increase pirating. Since the major content providers will no longer be providing content that will play on existing PCs and DVD players, that will leave a lot of people unable to play new DVDs. That leaves a hole in the market that will very like be filled by DVD pirates who will convert the protected HD DVDs into non-protected old style DVDs. The quality will probably not be quite as good but the truth is that other than us geeks noone else cares about that; the quality of current DVDs are good enough for most people.
Send/track messages to 100K people: www.xPressAlert.com
The CD marked the beginning of the disassociation of the data and the physical system it's delivered on. But while the rest of us are worrying about the problems inherent to the data format, you're talking about the delivery system.
Between tapes and CDs there were TWO changes. One was the data "bucket"--laser-encoded optical disc vs. magnetic tape. The other was the data format--CD-DA vs. analog.
Likewise, HD-DVD is both a change in physical bucket AND format. You're saying that the physical bucket doesn't offer much in the way of increased convenience for its greater cost.
But the issue is the new data format, regardless of how it makes it into your home. I think you're right that that HD-DVD players and movies are not going to be a big hit anytime soon. In fact I think the writing is clear on the wall that the next big physical format break-through is the network. What's easier than putting a DVD into a machine? How about just pressing a button on a screen?
But the problems with the HD-DVD format, and the associated DRM provisions as implemented by Microsoft etc, will still be problems regardless of how the data is delivered physically! And these problems are being locked into the industry and into products now.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I have done just that. I cancelled cable, and pretty much stopped going to movies. Without the advertising on TV, I no longer have awareness of or desire for what I'm missing (some of which is surely very good).
The problem is, I don't enjoy funding the folks who are stealing my culture. Besides, there's more entertainment out there than I could see in a lifetime. The Net, books, and library videos are plenty, and the quality is generally much higher.
In a quixotic attempt to prevent high def content from being pirated, the content cartel has decided to eliminate the market for it entirely. Ingenious!
This point can't be made often enough I think.
If you really live an absolutely virtuous, by-the-books, 100% wholesome American life, then by all means you can shout at me about how I use HandBrake to rip DVDs to MP4s so I can watch them without filling my entire hard drive.
But if you've recently exceed the speed limit, littered, drove in the HOV lane with less than two passengers, or any other multitude of other things that I see people doing every day which are a hell of a lot worse, in terms of direct effects, than my DVD ripping, shut the hell up.
There's a quote about people living in glass houses which is appropriate to this situation. If you don't know which one I'm talking about, ask your mother.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
...just don't buy into it... don't support the ....Hmmm terrorist who want to take our freedom away from us.
Unknown hackers who retrieved a secret player key have disabled millions of Acme BluRay Players. The key was published on the Internet which caused the Acme Players to cease functioning. In an act of good will, Acme offers a $20 discount on their new BluRay XXL Player for affected customers.
I have a secret, not so secret anymore-
I downloaded the Britney Spears "Oops I did it Again!" video off of apple's website in 2003 and redistributed it without consulting ms. spears. Quicktime Pro is great after you realize what you can do with it.
Paris Hilton *almost certainly* would not mind, do you think Britney would?
on this point:
...until you perfect direct-to-brain plug ins that is, bypassing the eye/ ear, but that moves this discussion to the realm of science fiction
"much lower quality"
actually the quality degradation of copies achieved through the analog hole are not onerous, unless you're an audiophile/ cinephile
and if you are, then you don't mind shelling out the big bucks to feed your expensive habits anyway, so the economic considerations in play with piracy don't apply to you
for the rest of us, 99% of us, no big deal
but that's not even the point of my comment: you don't even have to get to the analog hole step before perfect digital copying becomes possible at some point with legions of poor, intelligent, highly motivated teenagers as the enemy of your DRM
the point of my comments was very simple: that DRM is practically, and theoretically, impossible
what you have is a bunch of corporations spending millions pursuing an impossibility
if they just sat and thought about the implications of the reality of technological progress, they might realize that and change their business models rather than fighting reality
DRM, is, in essence, nothing more than a corporate buzzword that describes the denial some in big corporations are living in who are not able to accept change they cannot control, and are attempting to shore up a business model which can no longer exist: moving atoms around (cds/ tapes) instead of moving bits around (the internet)
they are just throwing money at a problem: a dying business model, when they should be throwing UNDERSTANDING at the problem: change the business model
the analog hole is simply the battleground of last resort for whatever DRM model they can possibly devise in any fantastic stretch of corporate imagination and funding
there's simply no way for the riaa/ mpaa to get past that convert-to-analog hurdle, it's like fighting the rising and setting of the sun: at some point in the wiring of whatever conceivable device you can possibly theoretically imagine for delivering audio/ visual, there will be an analog signal if the device is meant for consumption by the human eye/ ear
and at such point, you can jack in and make a copy
voila: the riaa/mpaa is fighting a pointless battle with the inevitable
but even then you need an analog signal in the language of brainwaves
unless you start DRMing the human brain!
which, to be quite cynical and dystopian about corporate power and genetic engineering, might not be so fanciful a notion in a hundred years or so
(shudder)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
because your cable box does not have a DVI out does not mean the content is DRM'd, stupid.
One can hope the Chinese come out with their own Hi-def DVD format without the DRM crap and that the independent movie and music makers jump on that instead. The Chinese have a huge potential market here. Eventually the hollywood dumfuks would learn their lesson the hard way.
unfortunetly, many otherwise intelligent people share that incorrect worldview you have.
what will happen is that you'll be required, in 5-10 years, to have a "trusted aka crippled" computer in order to access to internet. and most if not all jobs will require you to have access to the network to do basic things. it's called remote attestation and it's coming to a crippled computer near you in the next few years. (some computers are already crippled, notably the new intel systems, with amd to follow in another year or so).
the fact is, that someone "elses" problem will eventually become your problem. if your neighbor is being , then it'll find its way to you.
the hands-off approach here doesn't work... unless you happen to find a way off this planet... then i'd ask you to take me with you. you can drop me off wherever.
tell at least one friend about this issue. explain to them why they need to give this a lot more consideration. then tell that friend to tell one friend about it...
education is the only powerful weapon we have in our arsenal.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
> If the DRM is 100% transparent, as are the DVD-CSS and Macrovision then people will be more accepting of a DRM system.
...
That would explain why I had to buy a $30 (or was it $40?) box to connect my DVD player to my TV because my TV had only ancient coax input, and playing the DVD player through the VCR triggered Macrovision, no matter how stupid it would be to record a DVD to a tape
It's becoming such that those who merely want to use their computers and other devices will have to break these boneheaded schemes merely to make unhindered, lawful use of their own property.
Indeed, it seems that the people pushing this are so incredibly terrified of somebody making a copy for their friend that they ignore any other issues. If there was no copy protection, then one kid at every school would buy a copy and burn some copies for his friends. With the copy protection, everybody waits a day until one guy buys it and rips it and uploads it, and then everybody downloads it off the internet because nobody at their school wants to bother to go through the hoops to copy it -- he just downloads it, too.
This seems like a poor expenditure of revenue, and a bad business model... Apparently, then plan is just to sue everybody into submission until your customer base is too afraid to download anything. That's a good way to earn fans!
nothing more nothing less... i am fed up with all the hype, the hightech, all that CRAP! i have a 3k+ amd, 1gb ram and a graphics adapter that can play doom3 very well. WTF am i supposed to think about an announcement like that. i shit on your hd crap (haha). noone will use your high definition waste! please release finished, thought through, complete and future proofe technology! for the sake of sustainability! please! stop the tech haype bullshit!
no one will buy the content. I sure as hell ain't buying a DRM-ified monitor to watch HD content. It's all up to the market. If consumers capitulate on a massive scale, this could happen. If not, it won't and content providers will be forced to strip the HDCP DRM off of their content. Who's gonna blink first? I suspect this inititiative will go the way of the original Divx, time-limited DVD's. It'll just sink like a stone.
My lysdexia is really acting up today...
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
For those unaware - Spatz-Tech's DVIMAGIC, while sold and marketed as a DVI amplifier, is attracting attention among the consumer crowd as an HDCP stripper. The device is placed between your playback device (e.g. computer, cable box, HD-DVD player, etc) and your display device. The DVIMAGIC then pretends to be a secure device. Once the DVIMAGIC convinces the playback device to send the signal, it receives the signal, decrypts the signal, and sends a bit-perfect copy of the signal out the other end to your monitor. The result is a pristine restriction-free copy of your content.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
Should anyone find a weakness in a widely deployed player then sit on it a bit. Wait for adoption of the flawed device to peak and THEN release the crack. Of course, the MPAA and their toadies will go nutz revoking keys and forcing firmware upgrades all over the place. Many of which will fail and cause discontent. Even worse, some discs will likely not just play. From Joe Sixpack's point of view, it will be a random problem. This works even better if several such vulnerabilities are known and can be released serially for maximum effect.
People have been well trained to think of IT mishaps as normal. TVs have to Just Work. Joe Sixpack isn't going to understand when you explain to him that the reason why he can't watch Girls Gone Wild 10 is because some hacker in Argentina cracked his model of player and got it's key revoked. One answer to this is to pursue cracking not as a means in and of itself but as a way of baiting the MPAA types into a frothing rabid frenzy.
We all know what happened when Old Yeller got that way don't we?
For the majority of the population, if they don't have the equipment to display HD content they'll simply buy plain old DVDs as they have been doing for years now.
Nowadays, a lot of movies are distributed only on DVD. Who's to say that in the future, a given movie will be distributed only in one of the HD formats, whose digital restrictions management systems appear to be a much harder nut to crack?
I just dropped a grand on a new monitor a little over a month ago
It will be Islamic terrorism around the world and the skermishes for the last remains of oil that will push us all into WW III.
World War III was the Cold War. What you're talking about, the war between the West and Islamic extremists, is what some have called World War IV. And no, you're not going to see the last year of WWIV on TV unless you upgrade your TV and cable/sat box to one that supports the latest DRM techniques.
That is layered on top of HDMI or DVI. It isn't an interface.
HDMI is like DVI but without the analog and with audio (two channel only according to spec). I don't think it's a successor to DVI, since it doesn't have analog or dual-link. It definitely isn't "proposed", as I have two devices with HDMI connectors in my house already (connected together, no less).
I think you mistyped a bit up there.
Converting DVI to VGA is very difficult, unless the DVI connector has the VGA signal on it, which is can. Then you don't convert, it's just a connector change. If you actually needed to convert, it'd be expensive.
I don't know if HDMI supports dual-link, and I know it doesn't support analog.
I think this is roughly what you meant to say, but a single typo made a bit of a mess of it.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Interesting that your post has no replies. The truly scary stuff is the stuff nobody wants to talk about.
If you believe that adding such DRM software to does in fact "promote the progress of science and useful arts", then the DRM software is illegal to circumvent. If, on the other hand, these companies exert their copyrights to hold back arts
Then it's still legal. The Supreme Court has ruled in Eldred v. Ashcroft that it's Congress's job to decide what "promote[s] the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
Spatz-Tech's DVIMAGIC, while sold and marketed as a DVI amplifier, is attracting attention among the consumer crowd as an HDCP stripper.
Then watch Spatz-Tech get its HDCP license revoked, and new works will not play through Spatz-Tech equipment until the company buys and implements a new key.
If "upconverting" DVD players (i.e. INTERPOLATED resolution from DVD @480i to 720p/1080i) stopped carrying hi-res thru component video; I doubt it will carry true hi-res source materials at hi-res...
HBO loses massive cash the instant a company like HBO turns off the feed and Comcast is offering two hundred other channels.
When HBO's parent company turns off its feed, it turns off CNN, Headline News, The WB, TBS, TCM, TNT, Cartoon Network, and Court TV at the same time. That could hurt Comcast in favor of DirecTV or Echostar.
SD on a 60" screen looks terrible compared to HD on the same screen.
SD can range from SD over RF cable from the cable company, to SD over RF cable from an RF modulator on the premises, to composite, to S-video, and even up to 15.7 kHz component. Which kind of SD are you comparing with HD?
With block busters like the Dukes of Hazard, I'll just pass on the $7,000 monitor with the $2,000 add on tuner.
Dead Tree books don't have my rights "managed" for me. I like that about a technology.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Xbox 360 not only lacks an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray drive, it lacks any method of protected output. So even if you get an add-on drive, it's still not going to play HiDef movies it seems.
They've "allowed for the possibility" of a future model with HD-DVD or maybe even Blu-Ray, but it seems it'll also need to add an encryptable digital output...
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Spatz-tech gets their HDCP chips from another vendor.
In that case, watch Spatz-Tech's vendor get its HDCP license revoked, and new works will not play through Spatz-Tech equipment or any other equipment using HDCP chips from the same vendor until the vendor buys and implements a new key using the damage award from a breach of contract lawsuit against Spatz-Tech.
You won't run a straight HDTV signal into your display the same way you don't run a straight MPEG-2 signal into your display today.
I can't watch "protected MPEG-2" (DVD) on my current display without using Apple's DVD Player application. In the future I won't be able to watch "protected HD" without some kind of player-decoder either. Same as I can't listen to "protected MPEG-4 audio" without iTunes.
However you will still be able to play (and author) all the HD you want, just like you can right now. Apple's computers all come with built-in HD editing and have for more than a year. You can also make DVD's and audio files with today's systems and tomorrow's systems. And you can choose whether to "protect" that content or not. I make DVD's and I leave the copy protection OFF and I make MPEG-4 audio and leave the copy protection OFF.
Think of a Mac mini with a Sony HDTV hooked onto it (both available right now) and that is a system that is HD capable in every way. The HDCP will come in a future version of iTunes through which you can download movies. Or you can choose not to, or the "protection" will be cracked or whatever, same as the great raging debates today over the same stuff.
In other words the copy-protection is a software layer. It has nothing to do with your display or your DVI pipes.
I say we let Microsoft do this as long as they are required to pay the costs of disposing of old monitors.
Feeding a cow 90 pound of feed to get 1 lb of meat agrivates vegans: they want to eat that feed themselves ;)
It is analogous to paying $9.99 for content awhile the artist gets a $0.25.
Feeding big media conglomerates the $$ only strengthens them, so it is obvious to just not buy anything they offer.
Might as well try to coin the term now: ©egans.
like 'vegans', but the v is switched with the © sign... 'cagans': people who don't buy media and only watch free media. Perhaps '©egitarians' could mean they only buy content when the $$ goes directly to the artists.
Stop invalid scientific research. Ask your local scientists to feed their lab rats with a phytoestrogen-free chow.
First, a few things to understand up front.
With these things in mind, let's look at how this works. As mentioned, iTunes keeps an identifier for every song in your library. As you change song titles, artists, years, and so forth, iTunes is able to recognize that you're talking about the same song. Suppose you've made changes to your library, next time you plug in your iPod, iTunes needs to figure out which songs are identical despite changes in their metadata. As it turns out, the file names of the songs on the iPod are those identifiers. It then simply copies the updated file to the iPod, overwriting the original. However, if you change the properties of music files in your iTunes library without using iTunes, the metadata can be used to categorize the song appropriately, but the association between the internal identifier and the metadata is lost. In this event, the file will be copied over to the iPod with a new identifier and a duplicate will occur. The reverse case is also true and works out the same. As you update ratings or hold your place in audio books on your iPod, those changes must be reflected in the iTunes library.
Another behavior which demonstrates how the file names are not mangled to irritate users is how files exist on an iPod that is not configured in iTunes to be automatically synchronized. Try restoring your iPod to its factory settings sometime and disable the automatic synchronization feature. Afterwards, add some music then go digging around in your iPod with Terminal (or, you can unhide the directories on your iPod with this tool and use Finder). You will notice that the file names are not mangled because iTunes is not responsible for keeping them synchronized. With that feature disabled, it has become the user's job to determine if two song files are identical and reconsile changes in metadata between the two copies of the song. This is emphasized when you manually add files to your iPod, change the metadata of your music, then copy it back over. You will get duplicates. The only exception in this case is an additional numeric value is added to the beginning of file names in the event of a collision.
One last mention is the directory structure on the iPod. Descending through nested directories requires more file system reads. File system reads require more disk activity. That in turn burns up more battery power. The reason for the Fnn scheme is to flatten the list and help keep activity sequential, thus extending battery life.
Join Tor today!
It seems to me that those baddies who produce and market bootleg media could just play the video (or whatever) on a completely legal PC, with a bus monitor that pulls all the digital data going to the video card. Do the same for the audio signal. This is not hard, AFAIK. Then they have the complete, unencrypted, digital data stream in its entirety, which they can recompress to produce correct but unencrypted, unprotected counterfeits for sale in the millions, as they do now.
Doesn't this demonstrate that it is pointless to depend on copy protection schemes? Or is the casual cutting of a backup copy (considered 'fair use' since a US Supreme Court decision in the 1960's, IIRC) truly a greater threat to their revenues than volume bootlegging and counterfeiting?
Just for the record, I have only gone to two Hollywood movies in the last six or seven years (SW II + The Passion), plus I've watched 3 or 4 (legal) videos at a friend's house. Oh yes - I sold my TV a year ago, and haven't missed it.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
What makes you think I live in the same society you do? For good and bad, and as Morrisey put it, "America is not the world" (and that should have been "USA", not "America", but it wouldn't have sounded quite as good in the song).
We've tried fascism around here (and quite enjoyed it, for a while). The fascist regime's motto was "God, country, family". It's fun to see other people sliding down the same slope. Maybe it's a necessary step in a society's development, and it's a good way to see if there are any people left, of if the sheep have taken over completely.
Currently we're trying what can only be described as a bureaucratic bureaucracy. Not quite as glamorous as fascism, and not quite as entertaining as the USA's oligarchic theocracy, but we have a really good feeling about it, and we are going to write 7000 pages of regulations detailing how we can express that feeling. But first we must form a committee to decide what kind of paper to use.
RMN
~~~
nuff said.
Yes the original is more or less lossy (more or less depending on how much stock you put in ripping masters).
However it eliminates artifacts you could get by further encoding in MP3 or some other format designed to throw away yet more info. If you were happy enough with the quality in the first place the lossless re-rip should be essentially the same for most people (heck, in reality even the Mp3 re-rip would probably be fine by 90% of the market!).
But personally I use Hymn, which is in my mind just as valid a choice even if far fewer people probably even know about it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
perhaps the opposite is true. there's a weird need for some to perceive Apple as Holy.
For some that might be true, just as it is for Microsoft.
But again that's not where I was going. They are no saintly company of superior beings. They just happen to understand the simple fact that happy customers buy more, and generally act as if that were the case. There is no magic in that concept, though one might think so by the seeming dearth of companies that appear to know this.
Read the original story, and then the summary of said story. How can a person read one and then write the other? It's not a summary but a fantasy, a dark dream that wishes Apple were more uncaring in behaviour. How could anyone subvert the words of an article so greatly without agenda?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And not my enemy either. Just a company.
And yet it is true that the indifference of Apple has been kinder to me overall in life than the rapt attentions of a Microsoft trying to "help" me.
Clippy, I'm looking at you.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Heck, maybe I'll just read a book. They still let us do that right?
Not if you buy your Harry Potter too early.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I also read about this a while ago. That is the kind of thing that more people need to hear about, if there is enough outcry it might even affects what really makes it into Vista.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The DRM that Apple has provided has the built-in legal mechanism to bypass it - Audio CD.
I would rather have no DRM and thus find Hymn handy, but I can live with a DRM that includes:
a) Means to free conetnt from it
b) No remote deactivation
Remote deactivation I think is almost more despicible than any other aspect of DRM as it works by relying on peoples technical ignorance as to what the hell is going on. How many Napster users really understand the songs they think they own are one monthy payment away from being vapor? I think that's close to fraud.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's funny, but, it seems to me as if this absolute obsession MS has to "protect rights" such an extent that they risk alienating customers (which I must say shows rather a lot of arrogance to say the least) reflects their own desires to protect their own rights that causes them no trouble whatsoever with going too far (such as the invasion of privacy and general pain in the rear that XP has shown with the whole activation thing.)
.net, or, heck, I think I've seen the occasional rare non-gaming thing which actually required a newer directx.)
And, btw, I think it is a good point that since those future things will be backwards incompatible, it WILL cause problems. For one thing, has anyone considered the value of the handheld? And what about the less rich consumer who is perfectly satisfied getting a $50 DVD player at walmart that has no component output and plugging it into a TV that isn't a giant plasma screen super-HDTV costing thousands of dollars, but, a mere $100 or so composite only that they could actually afford? They just never get to see the movies outside of the theatre? What if they can't go rushing to the nearest theatre every time a movie they'd like to see comes out? What if they don't even know they want to see that movie until much later when a friend tells them they should really go rent/buy so-and-so as it's something they would enjoy, but, they are unable to watch it? Hope if they bought it the store has a good return policy that will accept opened goods if they didn't remember to check very carefully what the box said.
Frankly, I just see yet another of Microsoft's little money grubbing schemes, just like their whole little trick with Windows where they just completely drop all support, stop selling, and etc versions as they go to force companies and people to buy the latest version of windows just to keep modern things running. Seems to me like a well designed OS doesn't have to be changed out every few years. You know, there are people out there (especially businesses) who still get along pretty decently in Windows 95 despite having no support most of the time, though they often run into a brick wall eventually since eventually they run into some stupid thing requiring something new (say for example
The fact is, they've tried little stunts like this many times in the past and they just would not catch on. DRM audio/video files are rare, and from what I hear, most of them on the internet are being used simply to send the user to a fake site filled with spyware and trojans with the supposed intention of getting the certificate. I have never seen an official use in person, but, then I avoid WMA anyway since there are non-proprietary non-moneygrubbing formats out there (yes, even MP3, despite having originally been created by a commercial company, just one who was a little less arrogant and greedy.) Not to mention that many such as Vorbis are actually provably better...
I am, unfortunately, one of those non-rich people who generally is satisfied with the quality of composite video. It looks wonderful on my pretty decent quality little tv. I really am too cheap to run out and buy a bunch of HDTV equipment simply because people like microsoft think I should. I'm tired of most of the crap movies that come out these days anyway, I'll just find other uses for my time and money once it becomes impossible to play anymore if I don't feel like upgrading by then (and even if I do upgrade, if I don't have the required stuff, which currently is hard to find among even more expensive equipment I might add.)
We will not know what computers are
VPS hosting Guide
the agenda is in your head. i didn't read the FA but the summary stated that the 2 big gorillas of the software world want to adopt playing crippled HD content on general purpose computers. now you and i know that the only way that will happen is if they have hardware level crippling (DRM) supported on those platforms. ...
As I noted, the article says that Microsoft has complied with every wish of the MPAA and Apple will have no choice not to - but that is what I disagree with, so the posters summary (which is at best a very bad extrapolation of where the article was going) is misleading even as to article content, much less any factual content regarding Apple itself.
I agree generally with your points on copyright. I just see little reason to attack Apple for a position they have not taken, actions they have not yet performed. Indeed the ONLY video Apple sells at the moment is in an entirely unprotected format - and I am supposed to attack them for using DRM in video? Senseless!
Let us see how they play the cards before we declare all is lost.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Sorry, I did mix up HDMI and HDCP, but my original point stands: you should have no trouble finding a converter that removes HDCP. They're more expensive than the ones that do simple HDMI - DVI, but still cheaper than a new Cinema Display. See: http://www.cdfreaks.com/news2.php?ID=12115
This sig is just as redundant as the rest of this posting
It's not the hardware vendor's fault.
It's MS pushing this DRM crap through. HDTV standard has no scope for defining DRM AFAIK, it's just a display standard. 780p/1080i etc.
It's MS that should be afraid, when their customers look to alternatives that don't include this unwanted tripe.
All this high definition is pointless if there is not a corresponding improvement in the quality of the script.
Who needs to see some actor's nosehairs in another mindless big-budget Bruckheimer flick?
Movies actually work better being LOW-tech in certain ways. The framerate gives a much different feel than video, one many think is more "dreamlike" and suggestive. Let's go to 100 FPS because it's more accurate! What?
Likewise, film grain and fuzziness give a much different experience than seeing every pore and zit. If the director uses soft-focus on film, there will need to be a super-soft-focus to jettison all the HD detail. Then what's the point of HD?
You know what HD is good for is nature documentaries. I'm not sure we need DRM to protect THAT gargantuan revenue stream...
Exactly what I would have said, if I hadn't been dropping off to sleep when I posted...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I see many /. readers complain about the future schemes of IP protection. There is certainly some truth that all this is dictated by the already super-rich people that want even more money, but it is also very true that we have all been addicted in not paying for games/movies/other, and most of us use pirated software anyway.
Isn't it time that we start paying for IP? IP laws are not only for the rich people, but for everyone. If someone makes a cool video game tomorrow, or writes a good novel, or even makes a good film, why shouldn't they be properly rewarded for their effort?
Of course, if we start paying for IP, then the prices must fall...otherwise the situation will get much worse, with all the money concetrated in the hands of a few people (much more than it is now, that is).
I have a DVD player that upconverts over HDMI. It requires the end-point support HDCP.
I plugged it into my TV, and it just works.
And thats precisely why no one will care. It'll just work. A vocal minority who flips about not being able to watch content they don't even have yet will get upset. College students who cry "my rights!" who really want to rips movies, trade then and do all the other things the technology is intended to block will be upset. No one else will.
It will be like usual. someone will find a hack to rip the movie from the new Blueray/HD DVDs with stripping out any HDVADSFASF DRM and release it as clean DVDs/Blueray/HD DVD images or DivX.
And who will then need a new monitor? Nobody.
Plus, this is just for your PC, I mean if you really want HD TV then you need to get a new TV anyway, that has HDASDFASDFA built in, and then I don't care, and nobody cares. Because I just put in the DVD into the player and it will play.
"Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1871 - 1919
I can't see why we're surprised about this. We already know that most of Vista's "features" aren't available to us because Microsoft removed them. SO it should stand to reason that we also won't have access to the "features" they didn't remove.
"Windows Vista . . . it's Windows Xp, but more expensive!"
how many people are going to shell out the money for the hardware needed to play this shit?
Who cares about HDTV and that stuff anyways.
I dont notice any difference from a good old DivX except for the filesize.
This is just a thing they made so they can protect their shitty ass content.
I'll be willing to purchase a hi-res monitor whenever the entertainment industry starts producing hi-quality content.
Really, who needs any more details of Survivor, Who Wants to Marry my Mom, etc?
Most people watch movies in 480i, when most people watch screens in 1024x768 I aree that I am probably more needy....
I am not completely satisfied with my 800x600 projector (that is superior to 480i viewing
But I am doomed to 720p when watching tw and 1280 when watching a monitor I know that it is fairly enough for displaying what I want to have displayed
E.g. a standard DVD (not superbit) can look like crap on a 180cm (6feet) wide screen due to poor encoding no matter if 480i 480p or 720i is used
Now if I watch movies on that do I really have a broken heart that the "so important HD content" for my PC won't display?
Now and an other disturbing point: they calim everything over 480p is considered HD
Now if they do not say that tnan I am missing some points (what IS the HD then that monitors do not support)
or just too ignorant to beleive that my 1280 is not fairly enough for what I am using it for for the next few years
ahm never mind
It's worth it to note that there are a couple of products out such as the Spatz DVIMAGIC that simply remove the HDCP protection from the stream, similar to the macrovision removing boxes that you can still buy. At $500 it's a little steep, but it beats buying a new $3000 display (or in some peoples' cases a $30,000 projector).
What really gets me is that while products like this exist and are tolerated simply because they are "high end" (expensive), the simple existence of them negates all of the real protections that HDCP is supposed to provide -- for everybody.
If one of these things exists somewhere in the world, an unencumbered copy of whatever media is trying to be protected is going to exist and be duplicated, distributed, and probably sold, which is really what the studios need to stop. There is no doubt that movie and music studios, software companies, etc. lose potentially billions of dollars in sales to counterfit copies produced and sold mostly in the eastern world. It's a much harder argument to make that they lose anywhere close to the same amount of money from the casual CD or DVD burner in the US. Yet as the artifical technical hurdles increase, it will only be these counterfiters that have the monetary means to circumvent the protections and make the copies. Consumers will be hurt by this, and consumers looking for a copy of the movie they want that actually *plays* on their TV will make a very attractive market for the bootleg copies.
I find the argument for all of this crap harder and harder to swallow. It's currently cheaper to buy a DVD of a film than for two people (and in some places a single person) to go to the local theater where you have to deal with a sticky floor and a crying baby. So now that you burned me out on going to the movies, Hollywood, now you are going to burn me out on buying them too? Where do you expect me to go from here?
Here's the idea for the day: Start a filesharing network that only accepts media that has been liberated from a DRM encumbered format such as DeCSS'd DVD's, mp3's taken from "copy protected" CD's, etc. Encrypt all said media using the original DRM encumbered media as a decryption key. You should use a simple format such as XOR that could require the entire piece of original media and not just a hash or checksum of it to use as a key.
So your delaying your purchase based on a GUESS that someone else has made regarding what they might do? What will your alternative be?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you read those exact pargraphs, they do not say what you are saying they say.
9d says that if Apple folds you might operate at a reduced level of functionality - in short they may not authorize new computers. The old will still work, you can still play songs and burn them to CD.
14 a-b talk about your use of the Service (the store) NOT the music itself. Basically they provide no guarantee the store will always be up.
Nowhere does it talk about ANY remote control over files you own - and indeed they have none. The only leverage they have over you is authorizing new computers, but if it comes to where Apple will not hand out new auths you simply burn all your songs to CD or strim the DRM from them. Apple has no control over what you have; the files to not phone home once a month to decide if you can still play them.
Sometimes I don't sync my iPod for well over a month, but with limited Windows media stuff if you do not your songs stop playing.
Note also they talk about purchase of music as just that - a purchase, as per 9a:
Once a Product is purchased and you receive the Product, it is your responsibility not to lose, destroy, or damage the Product, and Apple shall be without liability to you in the event of any loss, destruction, or damage.
It's yours, don't loose it. The usage rules define the limititations on use but again say nothing about Apple being able to remotley deny you the songs you are playing on your computer now.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How the hell is this a Troll? Oh, wait, I forgot: a Troll == an opinion you don't like, expressed strongly.
This, ladies and gents, is why meta-moderate all the time: so I can mark every single Troll and Flamebait and Redundant moderation as Unfair.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
Judging from a few recent polls, only about 47% of Slashdot visitors are from the USA. So the expression "vast majority" used in the FAQ should be interpreted as "minority". :)
And yes, the USA is turning into a theocratic oligarchy, but it has sort of been an oligarchy all along, and so is Europe, deep down (only more fragmented and more bureaucratic) - the main difference is europeans are more cynical (i.e., we tend to assume that our politicians are dirty by default, so they can't be quite as obvious as the Bush junta).
Still, can you name one copy protection system that lasted more than a couple of weeks? The only people whose profits are really increased by copy protection are the ones selling the copy protection systems. We are getting screwed by money (it's not even individual CEOs or corporations - money becomes a separate entity after reaching a certain critical mass), but DRM is one battle where the resistance actually has a chance.
RMN
~~~