New Consortium to Push UDI and Include DRM

MarsGov writes "Intel, Apple, Samsung, LG, Nat Semi and Silicon Image formed a consortium to promote Unified Display Interface (UDI) as the new standard to connect computers to monitors and TVs. UDI will be HDMI and HDCP "anti-piracy" compatible. "

Comments

Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

So much of the computer industry today is based on preventing competition. Software patents, DRM, DMCA lawsuits for interoperating with others' software... (Though reverse-engineering for interoperability was supposed to be allowed, just look at Blizzard and bnetd to see how this turned out in practice.)

Does anyone really think hardware manufacturers are promoting DRM to fight "piracy"? Kind-hearted, generous manufacturers just looking out for the poor little media industry? No, they are racing to be the first with a de-facto DRM system everyone has to use, so that they can license their DRM and be the toll-collectors for all digital communication. Nothing more, nothing less.

Whether a sufficient majority of corporations ends up accepting one of the DRM systems, or Congress ends up enacting one of them as law, it has virtually nothing to do with stopping "piracy" and everything to do with eliminating competitors, both in the hardware and media industries.

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[warmcat]

AIUI all of these gatekeeper DRM technologies only operate when taking media that tells them to operate. So if you buy a HD "DVD" in 2006 it may not output at HD if it doesn't like your pre-crypto HD TV, but if you hook up your HD camera footage to your TV then it will operate correctly at the highest resolution.

Therefore the features ARE in there to please the locked-up content creators, and to get their systems blessed by those content creators so they will allow their content to interface to it and the systems will sell.

That's an important distinction because nothing in these locked up media systems prevents the creation of alternative liberally licensed media: there is no "toll collector" aspect to it I can see.

If you don't like the way the locked-up media is being increasingly locked up, just think "What would rms do?"

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[IAmTheDave]

Therefore the features ARE in there to please the locked-up content creators, and to get their systems blessed by those content creators so they will allow their content to interface to it and the systems will sell.

See, that's not entirely true. In fact, hardware has the capability to ignore DRM, which is why the entertainment industry is always trying to get laws passed that REQUIRE hardware to consult the DRM in the content before playing said content.

However, you're right, it is to "please" the industry, because if the industry is "pleased" then that particular brand of DRM will show up in the laws the RI/MP/**/AA write for the protection of the American People, and thus licensing fees will roll in, because, you know, you HAVE to license it or your product breaks laws.

These companies see DRM as something that is just a truth, and laws will be enacted regarding it, so why fight it, make money licensing it. Or in the case of this consortium, don't license it, but the best offense is defense, so protect yourself from having to pay to license another company's technology. That's the point of this consortium - everyone agree on a standard, and noone will collect while others are paying out the nose.

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

The toll-collector aspect is twofold:

1) You have to buy hardware with DRM built into it -- otherwise you can't communicate with anyone else who's in the DRM chain.

Usually this DRM is protected by patents and/or trade-secrets, so every individual piece of hardware needs a license from the IP holder. At the very least, it requires knowledge of private encryption keys and/or registration of public encryption keys with a central authority. This probably won't be a free service, and by definition can't be a public service, otherwise the private keys will be exposed to the public and the system does nothing.

2) Despite what they tell us, a working DRM system cannot freely permit unscreened content from third-party, independent producers.

Here's why: if the system allows unflagged media to enter and be displayed normally, it allows an independent content creator to release non-DRM-encumbered content. It also allows anyone with the know-how to bypass the DRM on a single piece of licensed content and re-release it without the DRM. Thereafter, anyone using p2p sharing will just download the re-released, non-DRM version, and it will be appropriately non-flagged as if it were a piece of independent content. Voila, the DRM chain is broken.

Therefore, the only DRM system that has a chance of working is one that requires all content to be registered in some manner, even if the registration is provided without charge (at a loss) to independent creators. This means you can't distribute your newest novel without going through a corporate/government approval body.

It's certainly possible no functional DRM system will ever enter widespread use, and I hope this is the case. However, the only functional DRM systems will meet both of the above criteria. In my limited foresight, that is what the DRM supporters are actually attempting, only in small steps at first.

(I wrote this reply soon after you posted, but Slashdot's excessive anti-anonymity measures have delayed its posting for over 58 minutes. For this reason, I'll be unable to reply again even should your life depend upon a response.)

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[cpt kangarooski]

There is some kind of implicit or explicit license involved in a consumer buying a typical CD or DVD, because each one comes with a list of "rights" that are "reserved"

No there isn't. The spelling of the one you posted indicates that the publishers might be writing it for areas outside the US, but being familiar with US copyright law, I'll assume that that is not the case.

This programme is under copyright protection

Not relevant.

and may be shown in private homes only

Basically because there's no private performance right in copyright. Copyright, with regards to simply showing a movie, only exists for public showings or showings to people beyond a family and its social acquaintances. So this is basically just restating the law.

Any rental, lease, barter deal or repurchase,
copying, reproduction or recording as well as
public exhibition or similar commercial acts
serving the same economic purpose, or their
sufferance, unless permitted by the copyright
holder or under applicable law, will result in
civil and/or criminal action being taken.'

So, aside from that being a threat, not a license, what it says is that if the applicable law permits it, they won't do anything. Which stands to reason, since they can't. Again, it's just restating the law, it's not a license.

BUT you have to buy the encumbered junk first. If you decide not to give money to the people treating you like that, then it causes you no problems at all.

Not good enough. I'd rather change the law so that it's prohibitively difficult for people to treat me like that. Specifically, I'd like to make copyright and DRM mutually exclusive and to have the law encourage (possibly by having the government do it) breaking DRM systems. Legal protections are fine (to a degree), but technical ones are totally unacceptable. Adhesive licensing to the general public as a substitute for sales is also something I'd bar; publishers can either sell copies outright, or not sell to the public, or negotiate licenses, or offer licenses that aren't substitutes for outright sales.

Re:Hardware DRM Serves One Purpose

[mrchaotica]

> otherwise you can't communicate with anyone else who's in the DRM chain ...
> At the very least, it requires knowledge of private encryption keys

These displays will work normally until and unless they meet media that demands extra assurances. If you don't plan on getting such media, as far as I heard this whole DRM thing will not trouble you.

That's what the AC addressed here:

It also allows anyone with the know-how to bypass the DRM on a single piece of licensed content and re-release it without the DRM. Thereafter, anyone using p2p sharing will just download the re-released, non-DRM version, and it will be appropriately non-flagged as if it were a piece of independent content. Voila, the DRM chain is broken.

In other words, any DRM system that would actually prevent copyright infringment would necessarily disallow un-"protected" content, because any method of allowing non-DRM content (including all Free content) would allow cracked (i.e. de-DRM'd) content as well.

> This probably won't be a free service

I hate what is happening with the laws and media lockup as much as anyone, but this is just FUD.

No, this isn't FUD. In fact, we're only one step away from it now. For example, SSL certificates aren't free, unless they're self-signed. And because of the point made above, the equivalent of self-signed (or unsigned) certificates could not be allowed at all in the DRM system, or it stops working. Therefore, there would necessarily be a central licensing authority to which all content must be submitted. Moreover, there's no reason to belive licensing would be free, because Verisign isn't free.

Make no mistake, any DRM system that worked as I describe would be very, very bad. Not just because it would create a "DRM tax," but because it would also make censorship trivial merely by witholding licenses from anyone that Central Licensing doesn't like. In effect, we would all become digital serfs, with Microsoft and the RIAA (or this consortium -- whoever wins the battle) as our Lord and Master.

HDCP

[Landak]

HDCP protection you say? Good thing it's already been broken (albeit anonymously). Coming new to you, DRM'd speakers, and your very own set of ContentProtection ((TM)) eyelids!

Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a felony for me to hook a real monitor up to one of these things, right?

Sounds cool

[ReformedExCon]

I'd love if there were a DRM system that worked invisibly and was effective at both stopping piracy as well as permitting fair usage.

That would be awesome.

Re:Sounds cool

[Mr. Slippery]

It was called copyright law. Then large numbers of selfish people decided they were above the law, and it ceased to be as effective at fighting copyright infringement.

Yeah, it surely was bad when industry decided they were above the law of the land and got Congress to create unconstitutional copyright laws that created eternal monopolies on content to people who weren't the creators of that content. Once citizens saw that copyright was about greed rather than about allowing artists to make a living off their work, it ceased to be effective.

You can't really blame the media industry for fighting back

Oh! I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. When you said "above the law" I naturally thought you meant the bastards who have shredded the law of the land in order to maximize their profits, not the guy who wants to make a mix CD for his girlfriend. Yeah, we really have to fight that guy.

Re:Sounds cool

[bechthros]

"Then large numbers of selfish people decided they were above the law"

You're exactly right. And those people were mostly Disney, and the Gershwin heirs. They decided that the words that were in the Constitution regarding copyright and public domain works weren't good enough. So they bribed Mary Bono and some others in Washington into changing the rules, thereby freezing the date at which works enter the public domain.

So hey. You wanna play rough? That's cool. But it's fucking ON now.

DRM versus the freeing of information

[dada21]

Those familiar with my anti-copyright stance will see in this example how terrible copyright legislation is for content creation. The intent of copyright (to give authors a certain time-limited protection over what they create) has been destroyed, and is now controlled solely by a few massive corporations that control almost every form of media.

UDI is the final step in allowing them to control the old media formats (TV and radio generally). It WILL happen, as Congress and those who control the old formats fail to see that they're outdated and no one cares.

The Internet blew up, in my opinion, based entirely on people's ability to be heard and to hear others. You're seeing millions of bloggers who write freely in order to be heard, not in order to sell their thoughts by coercing others not to copy them. You see people quoted (not always being referenced either), you see people copying and re-posting, and you're seeing massive "piracy" of every copywritten work. Copyright not only failed, but ignoring it created the biggest form of media in literally years. The Internet is at least two orders of magnitude bigger than all the old-media productions in all of history, combined.

What is the next step? Major media companies will continue to restrict content, and billions of small content creates will get together in tiny groups and capture that market. Podcasting is replacing the radio for a small percentage today, but in 10 years where will radio be? It will be an overregulated monopoly that no one listens to because it attempts to target too broad a market.

TV and cable will be another forgotten phenomenon, at least in the way we watch it today. Hundreds of channels of regulated media can not compete with millions of vidcasts, especially as production qualities go up.

Look, folks, DRM doesn't matter. Communists wanted everyone equal, libertarians wanted everyone free. The Internet offers both side a solution that could never come from law or regulation or mandates -- people able to meet one another's needs, disregarding borders and laws and restrictions that we faced for hundreds of years.

DRM? Go for it, big producers. I'm finding new forms of entertainment every day, and it doesn't come in a pretty package and it isn't advertised by beautiful people.

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information

[ScentCone]

DRM? Go for it, big producers. I'm finding new forms of entertainment every day, and it doesn't come in a pretty package and it isn't advertised by beautiful people.

You do seem to forget that billions of people actually like pretty packages and beautiful people, and that's why they pirate the work in those forms, performed by those beautiful people. Some people even take on projects that they can only afford to produce if they know that they can sell their work for actual, spendable money. People who deliberately seek out bar bands, dinner theater actors, and street magicians for their entertainment always have been able to, and always will be able to. People who want to see what someone with the budget for a cast of thousands, exotic locations, thousands of CGI processors chugging away, etc., aren't going to go away. But the people producing works like that can't do so if everything they do is ripped off. That doesn't matter to you, because you don't like that sort of entertainment. Which, is fine, since the people you do like aren't worried about the cash flow anyway, and even if you do buy media from such people, they probably wouldn't want to stamp their data as rights-managed, lest they offend you and their other fan.

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information

[dada21]

Actually, I love big productions. My lady and I go to other cities all over the world to see them live, and we attend film festivals to see them first.

When Serenity came out in theaters, I liked the plot so much I went 4 times (x2). When the DVD came out yesterday, I bought one copy for myself and 6 for presents. Yet when Serenity was released on ThePirateBay, I downloaded it until I could buy it. Why did I pay Joss Whedon and Universal for their DVD? Because I wanted to support their FUTURE efforts, not their past ones.

Nothing prevents content producers from protecting their creations in a free market. I'd say you have a good argument up to 1995 or so, but with the Internet, content producers can completely control their own content with zero laws. All they have to do is create stronger encryption standards, get together and make hardware that follows it, and they're there. That's what they're doing here. I am completely fine with content creators doing this -- I don't believe in copyright so I don't believe in fair use.

The consumers will also be fine with DRM. It will only succeed if it meets the needs of all parties. If it doesn't, another format will succeed. You can't stop entertainment, but you can stop those who don't allow every party to profit from the transaction.

Re:DRM versus the freeing of information

[dada21]

All fine and good, except only half the project is content producers banding together to create stronger technical protections and hardware to enforce it. The problematic half is them banding together to pressure for the passage of laws mandating that every TV contain these technologies, criminalizing hacking them etc etc. So the libertarian "let the market decide if it wants DRM" dream is, well, a dream.

Right now, they rely on the DMCA and other stupid laws to protect their BADLY WRITTEN DRM. If they want stronger DRM, they have to realize they can't rely on laws to protect bad programming.

I personally wouldn't buy a proprietary media format, but if consumers do, then producers should be free to make whatever they want. I believe that competition will let the cream rise to the top.

I don't believe in copyright either, but, due to its legal side, DRM is like copyright only worse. You may not believe in fair use, but copyright with fair use is less repugnant than copyright without it.

Let's ignore copyright for a moment and look at the most restrictive protections on content not using the law: subscriptions. Many writers (including myself) have private subscription newsletters that people pay to receive. They could copy these newsletters (and some do) the majority don't -- they want the information and they don't want many others knowing about it. I look at some of the US$1000 per year newsletters I used to subscribe to and I never saw them hitting the public eye.

The same is true with any information. You can sell information that is valuable, and you can sell information that isn't. If it doesn't have much value, you have to make your money by offering it to the widest audience at the lowest price. $2 for a TV show per person (x10,000) versus $1000 for an investment newsletter (x20) is the same money. Which has a bigger market, and which is more valuable?

Copyright can't change simple economics. If you make a product that is good quality and people want to see more, they'll pay for it. If they don't care about it, they won't.

doesn't appear to be required, though?

[Artifex]

Looking past the news report and skimming the documents, I see nothing in the core spec (vol 2) nor the physical spec that requires DRM by default? If I'm reading the specs right, It may be HDMI and HDCP compatible, but you can certainly develop without them. I could be confused, of course, so wait to see if Stallman to revisits the project. Notice that this project has been going on for quite some time. :)

Re:doesn't appear to be required, though?

[Andrew_Work]

The link in the summary to the ProjectUDI website appears to be in error. There is apparently some confusion between the Uniform Driver Interface and the Unified Display Interface. The scope for confusion must have been known when the Unified Display Interface project was named.

and obsolete 15 seconds after release

[GuyverDH]

Dongles anyone? Interposed between computer and device that override the repsonses to answer back as an *APPROVED* device for the non approved one.

DUH

Next idea please.

Here's one - track down those that traffic in the pirated goods, and arrest them.
Quit treating customers as criminals.

Riddle me this...

[vertinox]

How can the DRM software tell the difference between legitimate free software or a pirated work?

What's the point?

[fyonn]

we already have HDMI. It supports digital video transfer, has loads of bandwidth and even supports the transport of audio along the same cable. It supports HDCP and it is the standard for High Definition TV. my TV has 2 HDMI ports already.

I know HDMI has a couple of issues, it currently doesn't hass 6 channel high definition audio along the cable, ie SACD and DVDA, but I believe that's due with v1.2 or 1.3, it's on the schedule anyway. The other issue I think is that it only supports video resolutions, ie 720p and 1080i/p. but I'm sure this could be easily revised in the next version to support other resolutions too.

make sure it has backwards compatibility and what's the problem? why do we need yet another connector when we have, and are already using a good one.

is there any other reason to introduce UDI?

dave

DVD Jon will crack it!

[VaderPi]

Let them put the DRM in. It will just get cracked, and then we will use it like we want to anyway. It will be against the law, and the guy that cracks it will probably face a law suit. What we need to wait for is grandmother or a teacher getting sued for using the crack under what would normally be fair use. Then maybe the public notice how bad it is getting. Or maybe they will screw up the DRM and it will open the doors for display viruses. Screw pop up porn ads. How about in monitor ads. Little Billy will have a hard time why the naked women on the screen won't go away. In short, I fear that DRM must first get worse before it will get any better.

Re:I guess the movie studios and music companies..

[Anita Coney]

I don't think hardware manufacturers were bullied. If DRM is mandated, e.g., to watch HD on a computer you need a certain videocard and a certain monitor, then users will have to upgrade. If they upgrade, they'll have to buy all new stuff. This is a huge boon to manufacturers and software companies.

Batteries

[faqmaster]

The people-as-batteries scenario in The Matrix was just an accurate metaphor for what the "content industry" would like us all to become. Plugged up with inputs they alone control, we provide only the juice to keep the diabolical system going.

Defeat THIS piracy technique!

[ajs318]

How about replacing the cathode ray tube in one of these TV sets with a dummy one?

From the current flowing in the scan coils, we can determine where the electron beam is on the screen {though to generate a standard timing signal, we really only care about when it jumps to the left hand side or the top}. From the three grid drives, we can get the levels of red, green and blue light emitted by the nearest pixel.

Apply some rudimentary signal conditioning which, if you could get the circuitry to fit on an A6 size piece of breadboard, you really would not be trying at all; and you have a set of signals suitable for feeding into any old-fashioned SCART socket on any old-fashioned TV set or DVD+RW recorder.

There is no way to protect any kind of content against the "dummy CRT" attack -- and once it has been successfully applied, the content is now unprotected for all time

Re:Defeat THIS piracy technique!

[Lumpy]

It's easier than that.

This past week I was able to play with a Canon XL1HD camera. and with a small amount of setup I recorded a "protected" Live PPV content off our Calbe system digital box with a Hd projector this camera and a $9.95 35MM slide to Video converter box I had laying around at home.

The resulting copy looked only slightly worse than the origional signal on the Cable TV. if viewed on a PC or a sane sized HD television it was highly acceptable. It only looked muddy whe shown on the projector at it's normal 10' size.

So it's already broken. I can take what was recorded and compress lightly and have something that is better than most illegal copies of shows or movies on the net.

it was mostly done as a proof example to the Exec's here that were touting how secure the content is.

Re:Defeat THIS piracy technique!

[Foobar of Borg]

You know what this means, don't you? It means that university engineering schools are simply pirate training academies. All those universities are getting rich off of training pirates! I mean, it's not like engineers produce anything! Was Britney Spears an engineer? Was Ben Afleck? No, of course not! Then why do these "universities" think that they are training anyone of any worth? All they are doing is producing pirates who are destroying the financial standing of the RIAA and MPAA, whose products are as important as the air we breathe and the food we eat. Remember, when you rip a CD or DVD, you are aiding the terrorists and killing small adorable puppies.

Look to China

[DumbSwede]

Having been to mainland China recently I beginning to think they have things right in their economic model which is basically capitalism for things that are, well, capital. And communism for all things that are IP. With 25 years of 10% growth they are doing something right. So much so I felt compelled to write an essay on this only two days back (you can never go wrong pre writing stuff on IP or P2P for Slashdot).

Follow
Overhauling Intellectual Property Laws --or-- Balancing Capitalism and Communism
for my economic opus and ode to media bashing.

That's only half the battle

[dstone]

the content is now unprotected for all time

Sort of. This is an excellent, clever way to copy the content. However, consider that the copy you have captured may still be watermarked or otherwise uniquely identifiable.

From the perspectives of piracy-detection and legal-prosecution, you may still be on dangerous ground: copies made as you suggest may be tracable and still cause grief for you or anyone posessing them, depending on how the courts interpret "fair-use" that week. I hope using the technique you suggest for personal backup purposes would be legitimate, but you've clearly circumvented a digital rights mechanism (and possibly left evidence in the copy) and I am not a lawyer.

I'm pleased...

[JustNiz]

I'm pleased that they're using HDCP as it's been cracked already.
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/236

Its going to be really interesting to see how successful the new consortium is in forcing US copyright legislation on the rest of the world.

Or, perhaps, hardware not made in the US, or for US export only, will have versions of the interface that don't include DHCP. Gee. I wonder how long it will take for US consumers to buy their hardware from outside the US instead.

Why is SCO so heavily involved in this?

[Animats]

Look at who's writing the Universal Driver Specification. Go to page 5, and look at the affiliations of the authors. There are nine people from SCO, more than from any other organization. SCO doesn't have much of a technical staff left. If they're devoting nine people to this effort, they must forsee some major benefit. There's some hidden agenda in this. Where's the kicker in this? Start looking.

Also worth noting: there's nobody from Microsoft, and nobody from Red Hat. IBM has some people, but IBM is so big they send a few people to any standards effort.