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.
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.
You need the driver that authenticates to the display. I doubt very much that will be (legally) in any OSS drivers.
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.
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
4. Sue gun manufacturers.
5. Profit!
(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)
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!
..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.
The idea is that Vista will determine whether or not your system has an HDCP monitor. If it does not, it will either play the video at non-HD quality (downsampling, I suppose) or not play it at all. Thus, the OS will force you to upgrade your monitor to an HDCP compliant one if you want to watch HD.
Microsoft could choose not to implement this, thus allowing HD to be viewed on Legacy monitors.
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!!
-
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.