Apple's New MacBooks Have Built-In Copy Protection

raque writes "Appleinsider is reporting that the new MacBooks/MacBookPros have built-in copy protection. Quote: 'Apple's new MacBook lines include a form of digital copy protection that will prevent protected media, such as DRM-infused iTunes movies, from playing back on devices that aren't compliant with the new priority protection measures.' Ars Technica is also reporting on the issue. Is this the deal they had to make to get NBC back? Is this a deal breaker for Apple or will fans just ignore it to get their hands on the pretty new machines? Is this a new opportunity for Linux? And what happened to Jobs not liking DRM?"

Comments

To Steve

[JYD]

Built-in copy protection is a bag-of-hurt.

Sincerely,

Mac Fan who wants Blu-ray

Re:To Steve

[Wesley Felter]

Good luck finding a computer without it.

A 2007 MacBook.

The fact that the same video will play fine on a 2007 Mac but refuse to play on a 2008 Mac proves that the copy protection is not necessary -- if it was necessary it would be applied to all computers equally.

Re:To Steve

[Wowsers]

Without seeming to flame (flame mode if you like), we've had experience of locked down platform with Apple's iPhone. Now Apple join Microsoft in having a locked down OS for media playback, nobody can feel smug or superior (apart from Linux users).

Re:To Steve

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear "Mac Fan who wants Blu-ray",

Any major company making a Blu-ray player has 5 options:
1) Do not support playback of copy-protected content. This means most Hollywood stuff won't play, so your Blu-Ray player is useless.
2) Try to hack the copy protection. You may fail; if you succeed then pay big fines and get a court order preventing you shipping products, for violating the DMCA. Go bankrupt. Your employees might go to jail.
3) License Blu-Ray. When playing back Blu-Ray, do not support external screens - restrict it to the laptop's internal display.
4) License Blu-Ray. When playing back Blu-Ray, require HDCP for any external screens.
5) License Blu-Ray, but ignore the license terms. Pay big fines and get a court order preventing you shipping products. Go bankrupt.

Which do you want? You may not like any of the options, but unfortunately there's no other practical option. Apple's choice of (4) is probably the least bad.

These options are due to the requirements of the Blu-Ray spec, and were demanded by Hollywood in exchange for their support. Short of government intervention, Hollywood are unlikely to support any HD format without DRM in the foreseeable future. And Hollywood own the US government (see Disney's perpetual copyright extensions to ensure that Mickey Mouse never ever leaves Copyright), so don't expect any action there.

Re:To Steve

[khellendros1984]

And we Linux users have been feeling smug and superior all along! ;-)

Re:To Steve

[Hurricane78]

You forgot the best of all options:

6) License Bu-Ray. When playing back Blu-Ray, require HDCP for any external screens trough a updatable firmware. Then "leak" a "hacked" firmware (the original one) which does allow playback everywhere. And be sure, to make a big press release, that you will get "them" and sue "them", for creating such an incredibly well working "hacked" firmware *hint* *hint*.

At least that's what I would do. And I'm pretty sure some companies already did similar things.

Re:To Steve

[vux984]

PS There are surely ways around it.

Doesn't matter. I shouldn't be restricted. I shouldn't have to go 'underground'.

The fact that I can is irrelevant.

The fact that you could still get alcohol during the prohibition doesn't make prohibition any more palatable.

Re:To Steve

[windsurfer619]

I thought it was those BSD monkeys. Though Linux guys will be smug when they're done compiling, I'm sure.

Re:To Steve

[MrNaz]

I'd like to see you say that when asked the same question in a few years from now.

The cheap quip, "so use last year's machine" is so myopic that it's ridiculous. The principle is "DRM is bad" and, now that Apple have fully embraced it, I am no longer even going to consider trying a Macbook, regardless of what the Apple guys I know tell me about the wonderful OS.

DRM is bad, I do not want to support a company that buys into the whole attempt to control what I can and can not do on my computer.

Incidentally, if you think the DRM situation is getting bad now, imagine a world where all your computing gets done "in the cloud" (forgive me for using that idiotic buzzword) and you have no control over the platform you use to do whatever it is you want to do with your computer.

Big business wants to control your actions, so they can dictate what you need to spend money on. Recognize it. Fight it by not buying into it.

Re:To Steve

[roc97007]

Yeah. Nothing will play, but we're feeling damned superior about it.

Re:To Steve

[mollymoo]

BluRay has provisions for blacklisting players, so if Apple were stupid enough to do that, at some point in the future their users would insert a new BluRay disc which would revoke the keys for their BluRay drive, rendering it useless. I'm guessing Apple don't want that to happen.

Re:To Steve

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me a second

*Farts, then ducks his head near belt and begins to inhale deeply*

Re:To Steve

[Lumpy]

Really easy to do.

newegg.com - buy the parts install Linux.

MSI laptop barebones, build it with rest of parts, install linux.

your favorite computer parts maker wil help you find billions and billions of computers without DRM in it, on it or under it. It's actually really easy if you have a little bit of knowledge.

Guys have been hacking bioses, and video card firmware for decades, they will find a way to circumvent the DRM, the 13 year olds and hardware hackers on this planet are far better coders and hardware engineers than any fortune 50 company can hire. I know high school drop outs that know more about a car design and engineering than the top 5 GM engineers know about automotive engineering in general.

We will win, they and the undereducated masses will lose.. Same as it ever was.

Re:To Steve

[calmofthestorm]

Did you try to play it on an old projector/monitor?

Re:To Steve

[roguetrick]

Cry me a river, you fanboy. It is only insightful because it fits with your broken little worldview. Read the god damn article; it has nothing to do with Blu-Ray and everything to do with the iTunes Store FairPlay Version 3 DRM.

They implemented this crap because if they say no and stick up for their consumers they know they'll get passed by other parties as a content delivery method. They decided to be evil because it grants increased profits. Deal with it.

Re:To Steve

[JWW]

Forget my MOD points on this story....my goodness. I'm not a fan of BluRay, but wow. Why the heck would I EVER want a BluRay player when I have other options to watching HD video.

Those above comparing this to prohibition are spot on. Let's make it REALLY hard for people to do what they want with their content when its REALLY easy for them to steal the content and do whatever they want to do with it. Brilliant!!

What really bothers me is that it appears Apple fell for the same trap as BluRay with their on-line content. They could have really had a differentiation in their stuff vs. BluRay, but it appears they don't mind opening up "bags of hurt" after all....

Re:To Steve

[arotenbe]

I've often wondered how long it will be until mainstream computing consists entirely of thin clients with web browsers and servers that provide all storage and applications. You can encrypt everything to make sure the server can't read it, but you have no guarantee that the server will give you back your data after you've stored it.

But no one will care, because, despite all of the horror stories of their friends' favorite storage sites going under and losing all their data, people will think, "It won't happen to me!".

Re:To Steve

[Colonel Korn]

Good luck finding a computer without it.

A 2007 MacBook.

The fact that the same video will play fine on a 2007 Mac but refuse to play on a 2008 Mac proves that the copy protection is not necessary -- if it was necessary it would be applied to all computers equally.

The great irony is that you can boot into Vista on your 2008 Macbook and play the same video.

Re:To Steve

[jaxtherat]

downloading HD rips off any of the following:

- usenet
- thepiratebay
- isohunt

is a viable, serious option.

Re:To Steve

[Max Littlemore]

Well, in three years, you likely won't want to be using a 2008 model, either.

No, I may well be using Preponderant Porpoise.

Re:To Steve

[DigitAl56K]

DRM is bad, I do not want to support a company that buys into the whole attempt to control what I can and can not do on my computer.

Technically they're controlling what you can and cannot do with content and they've already been doing that for years with FairPlay. If you don't want to support them over HDCP then you shouldn't want to support them anyway because of FairPlay. The recording industry might tell them that they need DRM but I doubt they tell them not to license it to anyone else.

Re:To Steve

[Anonymous Coward]

Name a company that isn't out to get more profits. They probably won't be a company for very long.

Re:To Steve

[MacColossus]

I've been accused of being a Apple fanboy before. But I am sticking with a Macbook Pro (Early 2008) for several gripes I have with Apple and the new laptops. Glossy screen only (no matte option), new laptops don't come in a 17 inch version, mini displayport?!, they could use regular displayport to be compliant with the rest of the industry, no mini displayport to displayport adapter, no mini displayport to s-video adapter like they had for DVI, no mini displayport to HDMI adapter, HDCP support in the new ones as mentioned here, etc. I'm aware that one can overcome some of these. For example, one can probably use the mini displayport to dvi adapter with a dvi to hdmi adapter to get HDMI. I shouldn't have to hop through bastardized hurdles to get there and wonder what kind of video quality will be at the other end of this hodge podge. Apple SERIOUSLY needs to rethink mini displayport or start cranking out the adapters.

Re:To Steve

[lysergic.acid]

while Apple's douchebaggery should definitely be protested, your blanket statement about cloud computing is overgeneralizing a bit. cloud computing has a lot of advantages, and there are many cloud services that do not encroach on the privacy or freedom of users. whether or not a cloud service will take power away from users depends on the type of application, its implementation, and the nature of the company providing the service.

Google's policies have generally been very pro-consumer and do not encroach on the freedom of users. i have no problem using Google's cloud services because they've taken a strong position against vendor lock-in, and they have demonstrated that they believe that it's the user's own data and thus the user should have full control over it. if another company takes the same stance and are respectful of the rights of their users, then why not take advantage of the benefits of cloud computing?

with the growing ubiquity of broadband/WiFi access, it doesn't make sense to limit yourself to the fat client computing paradigm when there are better, more appropriate solutions out there. multitenancy has a lot of advantages particularly for small businesses. cloud storage, for instance, allows small businesses to pool their resources together to obtain much higher levels of reliability/uptime, data redundancy, security, and peak capacity than they would be able to afford on their own.

blindly clinging onto your data out of irrational paranoia is incredibly shortsighted. not all cloud service providers are equal, and not all cloud computing applications are bad. just look at the quality of Gmail's spam filters. such effective spam filtering would not be possible without implementing e-mail as a cloud service shared by 50 million users. and Amazon web services is so popular because it gives small to medium sized businesses affordable access to the same level of application hosting & data storage as major corporations like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc.

Re:To Steve

[calmofthestorm]

no such luck for mac users........yet.

Requiem.

Re:To Steve

[networkBoy]

yes, yes you can.
pixel noise will start being a problem as all those adapters cause reflections. Also the HDMI signal isn't digital, really, it is a digital bitstream on an analog carrier. (at the frequencies involved everything is analog).
-nB

Re:To Steve

[jedidiah]

Put up a TV antenna.

People need to get over this stupid idea that the only way you're
ever going to see HD Video is through some excessively draconian
DRM regime. People are stuck in a mental jail of their own creation.

Microsoft and Apple should have both told the MPAA what to go do
with themselves.

Re:To Steve

[mabhatter654]

remember too, the "hurt" of BluRay is that you have to update your players' firmware whenever the license board tells you to keep up with DRM schemes and revoked keys and hackers. That's Apple's problem in a nutshell. Microsoft notably doesn't include BluRay codex for that reason... Microsoft doesn't play other people's DRM either.. it's just so big companies will pay big bucks to cobble it onto Windows.

Re:To Steve

[rho]

Or stop watching TV/movies altogether.

If you read a book a day from Project Gutenberg you'd likely be dead before you exhausted it.

I find it really puzzling that some people are so exercised that they cannot watch "American Pie" without restrictions.

Re:To Steve

[worthawholebean]

I doubt this will ever happen. The fact is, hard drives (SSD or traditional) are and will remain a very efficient way of storing data. Maybe there would be some sort of mirroring, but I doubt we'll ever see computers just become thin clients.

Re:To Steve

[smallfries]

It's not a locked down OS. People need to get this in perspective. If it were a locked down OS then I wouldn't be able to just run a different media player to get around it. This is one application, locking use of a specific type of drm-encrusted file.

The solution is exactly the same as on windows or linux - just use mplayer.

Re:To Steve

[node 3]

But ask an Apple fanboi not to run the latest & greatest and you'll get "that's so 2007!" I'll bet that there's more than one fanboi who would buy a new HDCP-compliant projector in order to not have to give up his pretty 2008 MacBook.

'What a bunch of fanbois' does not an argument make.

Why would I buy an old MacBook? The new ones are better in virtually every aspect. The only real negative is the lack of FireWire. HDCP only applies to DRM'd media. Why would I buy one form of DRM (Blu-ray, iTunes) but gripe about another such that I'd run an older, inferior computer just to avoid it? There's nothing 'fanboi' about it.

Re:To Steve

[smallfries]

Why does it become the world's responsibility to adapt to the rules that the media industry would like? Digital data is easy to copy. If they want to sell digital wares then they need to adapt to the new rules that come with it. Not the other way round.

Re:To Steve

[rnelsonee]

No, that would only apply if the standard is the same. DVI is not just a different form factor than HDMI. HDMI can be more than 8 bits for color space, it uses a different color space (YCbCr instead of RGB for DVI) and rounding errors can occur in the processor when converting from one color space to another.

In this case, DVI is limited to 8 bits, and chances are the DSP is over 8 bits, so there will be no issue. But HDMI -> DVI does show that just because it's digital, doesn't mean there's no longer any conversion problems.

Re:To Steve

[penix1]

My problem with cloud computing is two fold. First, how do you know, for a fact, that Google isn't indexing your data or worse storing it for later use even after you delete it from the cloud? You don't. You only have their word and when push comes to shove if they can profit somehow on your data they will. Second, most cloud computing zealots want everything on the cloud. The cloud isn't suited for every application but just try to convince some PHB who was talked into it by one of these zealots and you got a fight on your hands. I speak from experience on this.

Re:To Steve

[DeepHurtn!]

Especially when you consider the legal implications of going "underground". This is exactly the sort of behaviour anti-circumvention laws are designed to prohibit.

You make an interesting comparison with alcohol prohibition. What are the consequences of outlawing a widespread and generally socially acceptable activity? The bizarre thing is I'd bet (but no, I haven't actually researched it) that there was more popular support for alcohol prohibition than there is today for prohibiting, say, time or device -shifting.

Re:To Steve

[coolsnowmen]

...Also the HDMI signal isn't digital, really, it is a digital bitstream on an analog carrier. (at the frequencies involved everything is analog).

Praytell, at what frequencies can there be a digital signal then?

How about I skip to the point:
A Digital signal realized using electricity is an encoding on top of an analog signal.

Saying that it isn't digital because it is really a digital signal modulated on top of an analog signal shows that you don't really know what you are talking about.

Re:To Steve

[Mattsson]

Obviously people shouldn't buy old computers to avoid DRM; that's inefficient and unsustainable.

It's only inefficient and unsustainable if most people don't buy old computers to avoid DRM.
If enough people do it, having DRM in computers will be too expensive since they don't sell, and we will have computers without it again.

Problem is, most people will think "I must have the latest model!" and not care if there's DRM built in or not.

Re:To Steve

[moderators_are_w*nke]

It is kinda odd that we're all used to using fibre for digital audio, but no for video, which requires more bandwidth.

Re:To Steve

[DrEldarion]

The world adapts to the media industry because the world likes the media industry's products and accepts the restrictions to get what they want. You may not like it, but they're free to make selling decisions as they see fit just as you're free to make buying decisions at you see fit.

They don't need to adapt if they don't want to. It's their product, and they dictate the terms that they sell it to you at. If they'll only sell it heavily-DRMed-up, then that's their choice to make. Your choice, on the other hand, is not to use those products if you don't agree with the terms.

Re:To Steve

[smallfries]

Sure, when you are talking about their products that is a line of reasoning that makes sense. But the problem is when they start trying to rewrite the rules to suit themselves. Digital data has one fundamental property - it is easy to copy. Although this doesn't suit the media industries it is a basic property of the market that they've chosen to enter.

You see it's not just a choice of whether or not we buy their product. It is also a choice of whether or not they sell it in a given form - ie as a collection of bits. If they chose to then they have to accept the natural consequences that it is easy to copy.

By all means try and wrap those bits in a DRM scheme. It won't work but it doesn't bother me if you try. The line that is being crossed, is when you try and impose an artifical set of restrictions on all computer systems - because if there is even one out there that functions normally then your scheme breaks.

That is trying to change the world to suit them. It's wrong.

Re:To Steve

[hairyfeet]

Uuuuhh......Why didn't you just point her to Staroffice instead of being a jerk? You do know with the economy in the toilet and folks everywhere afraid of losing their jobs telling her to go out and buy $2000+ worth of gear just to do some office work was kinda being a jerk,don't you? If a customer comes in and says "How can I make it so I don't ever get a virus again" THEN I would tell them about Linux and Apple. But to tell someone in this economy to "buy a Mac" when all they need is a piece of office software is kinda being an asshole when asked a legitimate question.

Re:To Steve

[hairyfeet]

What I don't get about the cloud computing thing is this: Folks seems to be missing the big "Oooops" written on the wall. You see,cloud computing can only work when you have bandwidth to burn,which thanks to the lovely telecos who let their networks and backbones fall down while in pursuit of the ever higher profit margin we simply won't have.

So I am making a prediction,and the prediction is this: That 5 years from now any mention of "cloud computing" will be strictly in a past tense. As will most likely Youtube,Netfix on demand,etc. Because the telecos will scream "we have to save the record profits!....errr we mean network,yeah that's it!" and will keep making the caps shittier and shittier until you won't have enough bandwidth to think about such things. Believe me,I know of which I speak. Here in northern AR we have the choice of 20Gb(DSL) or 36Gb(cable) and that's it. You even want to get 100Gb it'll cost you over $300 a month. Which of course the average household can't afford simply to enjoy things like cloud computing,Netflix,etc. Oh,and if you are lucky they'll give you a way to monitor your bandwidth,around here they don't. Helps to make sure folks use less than what they pay for to avoid the $1.50 a Gb they charge if you go over. Enjoy the future!

Re:To Steve

[RMH101]

Possible dumb question: won't you find that DRM video refuses to play on older machines that don't have the DRM?

Re:To Steve

[YttriumOxide]

Your choice, on the other hand, is not to use those products if you don't agree with the terms.

Actually, there are many more choices also open to those who do not agree with the terms, such as ignoring the terms, circumventing the protection and then having a large party where everyone runs around singing "DRM Suckxorz".

That was a little tongue-in-cheek perhaps, but really, I agree with you that it absolutely IS the media industry's choice on how to sell their product, but you seem to think that means people should either "accept it and buy the product if they want it" or "not accept it and have nothing to do with the product" - those aren't the only two choices available...

Re:To Steve

[DrXym]

DRM is really bad, but I don't accept that Apple has only just embraced it. Apple championed DRM. They were the flag bearer for DRM. Everyone who has an iPod or bought content from iTMS is subject to DRM. The DRM in their video content is even more hideous. Maybe only now they've gotten their HDCP house in order, but DRM has always been there.

Say what you will of physical media and its attempts at copy protection, nothing even borders on the kind of shit that Apple, Microsoft, Amazon et al are flinging at their paying customers.

Realistically DRM is probably here to stay. But what would be nice is if the industry adopted a single common DRM and movie format that all services and all playback devices could support. At least then a movie bought on iTMS would play on a 360, or a movie bought on Amazon would play on a Zune etc. The current situation of countless providers with proprietary DRMs and formats and partnerships with studios is running the whole digital download industry into the ground. It's like a repeat of digital music and ebooks all over again. These companies are their own worst enemy.

Re:To Steve

[Weedlekin]

"The fact that the same video will play fine on a 2007 Mac but refuse to play on a 2008 Mac proves that the copy protection is not necessary -- if it was necessary it would be applied to all computers equally."

What it actually proves is that older Macs don't have DisplayPort connectors, and therefore also lack the chips that implement the VESA DisplayPort specification, which has always incorporated DPCP, and added HDCP in the DisplayPort 1.1 specification.

Any hardware which has a DisplayPort connector incorporates at least one form of DRM in its hardware, and two of them if it implements version 1.1 of the standard. This will of course only be an issue if one is (a) using that port for connecting to a non-conforming display, and (b) trying to view media which invokes its DRM capabilities.

NB: because the VESA-specified DRM systems are part of the DisplayPort controller hardware, they do not require any OS or driver support to prevent protected media from playing on non-conforming displays, which means that they can't be bypassed by the OS or drivers either.

Re:To Steve

[VoidCrow]

Hahaha, yeah.

You can do things with a digital signal that you can't easily do with analogue. You can, for example, include forward error correction codes in the bitstream, so if bits become corrupted at the far end, you have a chance of fixing them. Using hash functions like the CRC family or MD5, you have a very good chance of knowing that corruption has occured, and you can include a rettransmission request in your digital protocol (if it's 2-way).

But, like you said (with fewer words), digital isn't magic.

Re:To Steve

[ultranova]

They don't need to adapt if they don't want to. It's their product, and they dictate the terms that they sell it to you at. If they'll only sell it heavily-DRMed-up, then that's their choice to make. Your choice, on the other hand, is not to use those products if you don't agree with the terms.

You also have the option of downloading the disinfected - DRM-free - version from the Pirate Bay or various P2P networks. You don't need to play by the media industry's rules. That's what they're afraid of: that people realize that two can rig the game.

Re:To Steve

[anothy]

it's not just him. there's some weird internet culture i don't understand where if you use products from a certain class of company, you're automatically a fanboy (and WTF's with the "i"?). Apple's probably the most widespread, but i've seen it with Google, and various video game companies, at least. i really don't understand the emotional place this comes from. i think there's often an element of jealousy, but it's deeper than that. charitably, i'd say they're confusing the fact that some product/service doesn't meet their needs for the idea that it therefore can't meet anyone's, and anyone who chooses it must be doing so based on the status value, or hype, or something.

Re:To Steve

[DAldredge]

"(you can't drop a web service down the stairs, or run a magnet over it)" Yes you can. Don't ask.

Re:To Steve

[OrangeTide]

I think the real issue is that even though something is a digital signal, you can still have corruption of the data (pixel noise) due to interference, wiring, etc. Digital has to suffer the realities of an analog world. It's not as perfect as we have been told, although it is possible to make a perfect digital copy/transmission it is not a guarantee in all circumstances.

And what is more important here, I believe, is that digital can be converted and translated and still result in loss if the conversion is not perfect 1:1. Examples include RGB to YCbCr, MPEG compression, changing of bit depths, conversion of resolutions (especially those that aren't evenly divisible).

Suddenly glad I bought the previous version.

[jbeach]

I don't think that's ever happened to me before.

Re:Suddenly glad I bought the previous version.

[roc97007]

Now you know how us Windows XP users have been feeling. :-)

Don't really care

[Trillan]

I don't buy any videos from iTunes: I prefer to rip my own.

Re:Don't really care

[geekoid]

"I'm sorry Dave, but I can't let you do that."

Re:Don't really care

[Trillan]

The barn door has not just been left open on the DVD format, someone loaded it into the back of a truck and sped off.

My guess is this is what they had to do

[antifoidulus]

in order to get Blu-Ray playback licensing

Re:My guess is this is what they had to do

[StarManta.Mini]

....buuuuuuut..... they don't HAVE Blu-Ray drives....

Re:My guess is this is what they had to do

[GFree678]

in order to get Blu-Ray playback licensing

Most likely. And yet when Microsoft did it first by implementing it in Vista, they were (and continue to be) flamed for it.

Yes I know DRM exists in other areas of Vista (eg. protected audio path), but still, now that Apple have gone with this, will they be flamed too as should be fair?

Questions? Answers.

[bigstrat2003]

Is this the deal they had to make to get NBC back?

It seems likely enough to me. I guess I have no proof either way, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least to find that this was NBC's idea.

Is this a deal breaker for Apple?

No.

Will fans just ignore it to get their hands on the pretty new machines?

Yes. Just like they always do.

Is this a new opportunity for Linux?

No, since it won't hurt Apple.

And what happened to Jobs not liking DRM?

Nothing. That was a lie then, and is still a lie. Apple puts DRM in their flagship product, and you actually believe them when they spout bullshit about disliking DRM?

Re:Questions? Answers.

[onefriedrice]

Sweet. Once MS put DRM in the OS layer of Vista, Apple felt the need to one-up them with DRM built right into the hardware. Take that, Microsoft.

Re:Questions? Answers.

[That's Unpossible!]

That was a lie then, and is still a lie.

I hate taxes. I try not to pay them.

Yet, in order to keep living outside of jail, I keep paying them.

Am I lying about hating taxes? Or am I playing the game that needs to be played?

Re:Questions? Answers.

[bigstrat2003]

Interesting point of view, but I don't think that applies to Apple. In the case of taxes, there is more or less a gun held to your head that forces you to do such a thing. Not so with Apple.

Re:Questions? Answers.

[Draek]

So, under which laws Apple will go to jail if they don't put DRM in their notebooks?

Thought so.

Re:Questions? Answers.

[jcr]

Apple puts DRM in their flagship product, and you actually believe them when they spout bullshit about disliking DRM?

I believe any hardware maker when they say the don't like DRM. It's tedious to implement, it's expensive, it wastes battery time, and it annoys customers. The only reason anyone implements it is to placate the **AA.

-jcr

Re:Questions? Answers.

[truthsearch]

Most of Apple's growth for years has been tied directly or indirectly to multimedia. It's what's most differentiated them from Microsoft in the eyes of the common computer user. All of the big content owners demand DRM. So the choice was between DRM and corporate growth or no DRM and Apple going nowhere.

Re:Questions? Answers.

[TrekkieGod]

That was a lie then, and is still a lie.

I hate taxes. I try not to pay them.

Yet, in order to keep living outside of jail, I keep paying them.

Am I lying about hating taxes? Or am I playing the game that needs to be played?

The difference is that you're describing something that you see as a disadvantage. You dislike paying taxes because you wish you could do something else with your money.

Now describe to me why Apple dislikes DRM. As far as I can see, not only are they playing the so-called "game that needs to be played" but since they're the market leaders in that particular business, it also serves as a lock-in. If you've been buying your tv shows from iTunes for the convenience of buying stuff online, you know you can watch your stuff on the goal with an ipod. Better not buy a zune, your videos won't work there!

Ok, that's going too far. Nobody would buy a zune either way. However, do you want to set up a media center that lets you watch all those videos in your living room? The AppleTV is the choice for you! You sure as hell can't set up a mythtv box. If you buy a windows media center box from dell, that won't play those videos either.

So, I know why you don't like to pay taxes. Tell me again why apple hates drm?

Re:Questions? Answers.

[Moebius Loop]

There's no gun to your head to pay taxes, just a financial threat (yeah, you can go to jail for tax evasion, but only because you can't afford to pay the taxes you owe).

If Apple didn't support DRM in iTunes, few if any of the labels would have signed on at the time. Even now, it's clear that the majors continue to believe it's a requirement, and would quite possibly not sell their music through iTunes, thus impacting Apple's bottom line.

I think it's an apt analogy.

Re:Questions? Answers.

[Lemmy Caution]

If this is true, why do Amazon an eMusic have such huge collections of DRM-free music? Is the difference between their catalogs and the iTunes catalog that big?

Re:Questions? Answers.

[Lemmy Caution]

Dear Pottymouth:

Apple's number one motivating factor, and the number one motivating factor of all publicly traded companies, is to increase stock value. If a clean user experience - or at least the perception of it - is one way to do it, then that's what it's going to be.

But one theme rings true throughout the Apple way of doing things: a tightly controlled branded ecosystem, which is what underlies the clean user experience. DRM can fit quite tidily with that principle.

Re:Questions? Answers.

[c_forq]

That is the record companies responding to the fear that Apple might get too much bargaining power (like how Walmart forced them to lower CD prices). They were willing to make concessions in hopes that iTunes would lose a bit of power (and I think that at least Amazon worked out very well).

Re:Questions? Answers.

[jcr]

Any claim they don't like DRM is pure, unmitigated bullshit.

I've been there, I know some of the people who had to implement it, and I can tell you from direct personal knowledge that you are wrong. Apple doesn't like DRM, and neither does any other hardware maker. Just ask any of the companies that shipped "plays for sure" Windows Media DRM how that worked out.

-jcr

Re:Questions? Answers.

[bigstrat2003]

Apple is a hardware company. Were you gone that day?

Not when they make an OS, they're not. They're in the OS and the hardware business, and they choose to tie their products together with DRM. And if they're in the hardware business, how come all their advertisements for their computers aren't actually for the computers, but how much better their OS is? Right, because they only claim to be in the hardware business, but that claim is only part of the truth.

Apple did not invent DRM and OS X is not copy-protected. You can copy it a zillion times and install it with no problems, activation, etc. to any supported Apple computer in existence an unlimited number of times.

And? The point is Apple puts DRM on their OS. This flies directly in the face of the claim that they dislike DRM. If they disliked it, they wouldn't actively choose to use it.

Re:Questions? Answers.

[mstone]

You're joking, right?

Apple hates DRM because it takes a shitload of time, money, and effort to design and implement, and an even bigger shitload of time, money, and effort to show 'plausible efforts' to keep it working once it's deployed. Anyone who tries to do DRM simply agrees to climb on a treadmill of trying to stay a fractional step ahead of the people who will break the protection.

Apple hates DRM because DRM is inherently futile. You simply can't build a system that puts both the lock and the key in the hands of the end user, then impose rules on what the user can do with those two pieces.

Apple hates DRM because the longer DRM is allowed to exist, the longer the content cartel will continue to make this massive, futile investment a requirement for any access to content. Apple especially hates DRM because it puts the content owners in a position where they can say, "I don't have to know how it works, or whether it's even possible. I have the power to say what has to be done, and making it happen is your job. And thanks to the laws that we've bought and the contracts we've written, if you don't manage to do the impossible to our satisfaction, we can sue the shit out of you then nail you on criminal charges."

Apple hates DRM because using DRM simply manufactures enemies with the technical knowledge to rip apart any technical measures Apple tries to build. And while defeating DRM may be a socially acceptable goal, a lot of that knowledge can potentially be reapplied to general malware.

Apple hates DRM because it sucks for the user. Remember: Apple doesn't make money licensing its OS to a bunch of OEMs who then try to sell a product to consumers, or with massive, umpty-thousand-seat software licensing deals. Consumer dissatisfaction hits Apple in the pocket much harder than it hits Microsoft. On top of that, Apple sells in the premium-priced segment of the market, where people are willing to say, "if I have to put up with something that sucks, I can buy another product for a whole lot less."

It would take Apple a hell of a lot less effort to make a product that users like a hell of a lot more if they could ditch DRM. Given that less than 1% of all the music on iPods was purchased through the iTunes store, the idea that Apple sees some kind of benefit from consumer lock-in just doesn't scan.

The only upside of DRM is that it gives Apple access to the content cartel's catalog. And tens of millions of consumers voting with their dollars have said that they prefer devices that do have DRM and cartel content over devices free from DRM that don't have cartel content.

So in the long run, it comes down to a question of philosophy versus economics. If you hate DRM so much you won't buy a Mac, iPod, or iPhone, so be it. The few thousand people who agree with you on that score are less valuable to Apple than the 15-20 million who will buy new DRM-encumbered Macs, iPods, and iPhones in the next quarter.

Obligatory Apple reality check

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

If you remove the cloud of the the hipster-doofus lovefest for Apple you realize that Apple only has one obligation as a publicly traded company

Making a profit for shareholders

Why anyone is surprised that Apple (and Google) act like real companies is always a surprise to me.

Apple needs to turn a profit and make concessions to satisfy stockholders.

Re:Obligatory Apple reality check

[Grishnakh]

The problem is that, in a sane society, a company makes a profit for its shareholders by producing products that customers want to buy, and in general by treating the customer as king. Remember the old phrase, "the customer is always right."

So how does screwing over your customers and making them angry equate to making a profit for your shareholders? The giant media companies aren't the ones giving money to Apple, it's regular people buying their hardware, software, and stuff on iTunes.

Re:Obligatory Apple reality check

[Free the Cowards]

The problem is that the obligation is getting twisted into "make a profit for shareholders soon", with an almost total lack of concern for the long term.

Apple is actually one of the better companies in this regard, but a lot of companies are running into trouble because they think that shareholder value means pumping up their upcoming Q7 results no matter what.

Re:Obligatory Apple reality check

[jonico]

This is not how things work in a capitalistic society. It is usually not the case that companies produce products that people want; the largest companies manufacture needs, brands, and lifestyles, and then tell the consumers that if you want to live your life in that way then you need buy these products.

Re:Obligatory Apple reality check

[onefriedrice]

Probably because Apple's customers are not angry. Apple's DRM doesn't usually get in too many peoples' way. For example, most people don't have >5 devices where they want to have their music play at the same time, and if they do, they can always just burn it to CD. It's still the most liberal DRM that I know of.

That's why consumers don't have a problem with it. The only ones extremely opposed to Fairplay are the idealists who are against the very idea that they can't be trusted to obey the law. Those types of people aren't in the target market for iTMS anyway, so Apple isn't hurting at all by making profit for shareholders, appeasing media content providers, and giving (actual) costumers what they want.

Re:Obligatory Apple reality check

[MacDork]

So how does screwing over your customers and making them angry equate to making a profit for your shareholders? The giant media companies aren't the ones giving money to Apple, it's regular people buying their hardware, software, and stuff on iTunes.

I'm sure I don't like DRM any more than you do, but before firing off like that, have a look at how Apple has made use of their DRM monopoly with Fairplay. They've consistently dictated prices over the RIAA monopolies and won. They are using their lock on DRM to act in their own best interest, which also happens to be their customers' best interest.

Apple IS telling the giant media companies to go f*** themselves on price hikes and more oppressive DRM restrictions in favor of their customers needs/demands. I think the most magnificent/ironic aspect of the whole deal is that if it weren't for the DMCA, the RIAA could simply reverse engineer a compatible version of Fairplay and be done with Apple. The media monopolies cut their own throat by lobbying for a law and then allowing someone else to exploit it first. You have to find that at least a little bit amusing.

Now if we could just convince Apple that locking developers out of the iPhone really IS a bad idea, I'd have nothing bad to say about them.

Re:Obligatory Apple reality check

[MacDork]

Al, that's a really tired argument. Every Mac comes with a disk burner. Every iTunes track can be burned and re-ripped removing the DRM. It isn't hard. It isn't expensive. It isn't even time consuming on any computer made in the last 3 years. I've done it myself with several tracks. I can't hear any difference. Honestly, they're digital downloads... they're already compressed in a lossy format and reripping them into that exact same format doesn't make an audible difference, at least not to my ears. Maybe you're 12 years old and you can still hear things I can't. It still won't be a big difference, even if you have dog ears.

Besides, millions of songs on the iTMS are now DRM free now. The record companies are giving up one at a time, just like they gave into digital downloads one at a time. Remember what a big deal it was getting the Beatles on iTunes, dragging them, one at a time, kicking and screaming into the 21st century? The big labels realize they've been pWN3D by Apple and there's no use fighting it. They'd rather be available on all players and all stores and making money. Apple's DRM has effectively defeated a bleak future full of DRM laden music in a most unexpected way. Apple used DRM like the GPL uses copyright.

They beat the bastards at their own game and on your behalf. But rather than be the least bit grateful that they saved your ass from that bleak future, it's obvious you have a strong, unwavering, irrational hate for Apple. Apple might be the number one music retailer in the US now, but I'd hardly classify a 19% market share a monopoly. You go right ahead and hate them though, I'm sure they didn't do it for any of your gratitude. They did the right thing because that was also the smart and profitable thing to do and they proved it becoming #1.

What will fanbois think?

[duckInferno]

I wonder if this will help jolt people towards reality: Apple's just like Microsoft. The only real difference is that Apple makes somewhat better gear.

Oh, Steve Jobs is still an asshole.

Re:What will fanbois think?

[Seakip18]

Wow. This got knocked down as a troll pretty quick. While his comment about Steve Jobs being an ass is uncalled for, I don't see the need for a -1.

Anyways, I think Apple is starting to think that they're island of a system is going to be brought into contact with more competition, like ragnarok and other software. This is one of the preemptive measures to assure that Apple's flagship software stays that way.

Re:What will fanbois think?

[duckInferno]

Eh, I should have thought about it a little more before I posted something critical of the Almighty ;)

Er, it's HDCP.

[MetaPhyzx]

I don't think you can buy a mid to high end vid card these days that doesn't have HDCP baked in; I'm not surprised.

Note that I didn't say I was enthralled, just not surprised.

Re:Er, it's HDCP.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. If it wasn't in this iteration, it probably would have been in the next one.

That being said, HDCP sucks, no matter what the device. It's evil because it blocks legitimate uses as badly as illegitimate ones, and it adds a whole new layer of potential incompatibility. There are ways around it with extra hardware, but it's stupid to have to pay hundreds of dollars to get around a built-in product defect.

One more reason to download the pirated version of the media even if you bought the legitimate one.

Will fans just ignore it?

[klapaucjusz]

will fans just ignore it

No. They'll start explaining why it's actually an advantage for the user.

Who cares?

[vanyel]

If you don't buy crippled content in the first place, it's just wasted, unused, hardware.

Two screen dilemma

[coxymla]

I think one of the most worrying things about this story is the claim that you can't watch your content while you have any non-HDCP device connected, even if you're not watching it on that screen!

For someone like me who has a Dell 20" screen that supports HDCP, but also an Apple 20" screen that does not, we're expected to unplug one screen every time we want to watch something protected in this manner? Get real!

Re:Two screen dilemma

[torstenvl]

As a Switcheur of two years now, one thing that STILL bothers me is that I can't take screen grabs while a DVD is playing -- even if DVD Player is in a different space or on a different display!

Grrrrrrrr

On the other hand, DVD Player is lightweight enough and good enough at remembering where it is that I can cmd+tab/cmd+q/cmd+tab/cmd+shift+3/click and the movie interruption is something like 4-5 seconds.

But still.

Re:Two screen dilemma

[Free the Cowards]

Think of it as an implicit endorsement of piracy. If you can't play purchased media on your 100% legitimate hardware, then the choice is clear.

Re:Two screen dilemma

[tiny-e]

Yes you can -- just not with cmd-shift-3 or 4..

Try this: (it's posted all over the place, this one came up first in google) http://highschoolblows.blogspot.com/2005/11/take-screenshot-of-dvd-player-in-os-x.html

Re:Two screen dilemma

[Have Blue]

Your solution is right, but your reason is wrong. If you press the screenshot key combo on OS X while DVD Player is running, you don't get a screenshot with a blank spot where the video is- you get an error dialog. It's a deliberate lockout.

Excellent news!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Steve, whose care for his children passes understanding, knew that many buyers of new macbooks yearn in their hearts to purchase new Apple monitors to go with them. He knew further that for the many crying out, oppressed by old Apple monitors that they already owned, following their desire would be difficult.

And thus, by his hand, a gift was bestowed. His people would, with Him as a purveyor of protected premium content by day and by night, be led away from the old and to the new monitor of their desire.

Re:Excellent news!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Wow. I think I just got 0wned by Poe's law.

FYI?

[girlintraining]

Vista has the same kind of so-called "protection". Just so we're clear on that. Thanks.

In other, unrelated news, it should be easy to crack. The ghost of Bruce would also like to say "Software copy protection doesn't work"... and since this is a download... well then. So there you go. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:FYI?

[girlintraining]

Because those traces are on-die. You'd have to take the signal from the output side of the DAC as it goes to the LCD. Reconstituting that signal back into something meaningful would require more hardware and would likely be specific to that model or manufacturer.

Lies

[EdIII]

This article is totally misleading. It's just HDCP. The media has to be HDCP aware in the first place.

If you don't by defective DRM laden media, then you do not have a problem.

In some ways, this is actually a GOOD THING. Now the hardware can actually communicate with other media devices that demand a HDCP connection.

So to SUM UP, all the PIRATED MEDIA WILL STILL PLAY.

Re:Lies

[Jherek Carnelian]

Now the hardware can actually communicate with other media devices that demand a HDCP connection.

No such devices exist. HDCP is strictly transmitter enforced. All HDCP-enabled display and audio devices are fully capable of doing their job without HDCP being turned on.

However, by enabling HDCP on their video hardware Apple has actually increased the opportunity for compatibility problems. If the Apple video hardware tries to do an HDCP handshake and fails - for any number of reasons, like data corruption or a bug in the implementation on either end, etc - then the end result is likely to be a completely blank screen (it should be obvious that if HDCP is turned on, but isn't working right, the only logical result is for the video hardware to stop transmitting, else it risk transmitting sooper-secret-video in the clear). There have been many reports of just this sort of handshaking failure with all kinds of HDCP-enabled devices like ps3's, blu-ray players, amplifier/receivers, etc.

Re:Lies

[EdIII]

First off, I am not a FanBoy of *anything*. So I am not being an apologist for Apple of even remotely trying to make arguments that DRM is a good thing. The only way HDCP could be a good thing is by making the Apple product more compliant with other devices. Another poster says I am wrong about that. Fine, If I am then HDCP is essentially worthless to the consumer.

The whole post is misleading because it is representing that a new Apple product has hardware copy protection like the XBOX, XBOX360, Wii, PS2, PS3, PSP, etc.

This is simply not the case. HDCP is not even in the same ball park. It is just protecting HDCP *aware content* from being heard and/or displayed on devices that don't also have HDCP to protect the content during transit. That's it.

You are not stopped from playing your own content, DRM-free content, or even pirated content. The whole tone of the article and the title itself would seem to suggest otherwise, and I call that F.U.D.

DisplayPort

[mpaque]

This is all part of DisplayPort, the display connection. Like HDMI, the digital display connection for HDTV gear, DisplayPort includes an end-to-end encryption mechanism. (Take a look at HDMI/HDCP.)

The end-to-end secure data path is something the HD content providers insist on.

Re:DisplayPort

[sootman]

And it just occurred to me: you'll only be able to watch HD content from a new MacBook with a new DisplayPort monitor--like the one Apple just introduced. That nice old DVI-connected 23" or 30" LCD you've been using up until now won't work.

I know this isn't the answer for everyone, but I'm totally happy with SD video, even on large screens. Thanks, Apple, for giving me yet another reason NOT to move forward. I don't care about HD content but it's nice enough and I'd buy it if all other things were equal--but if it's going to actively work against me, it definitely lands in the "fuck it" pile.

Re:When will people get a clue?

[Voyager529]

because their pr0n still loads...for now.

Unauthorized playback protection != copy protect

[penguinstorm]

Playback protection is part of a strategy of copy protection, but it's not the same thing.

Playback protection can hurt me even if I'm *not* trying to copy the media in question, which is my main objection to it.

Copy protection is arguably more legitimate, but it does depend on the specific copyright laws of your jurisdiction.

Up here in Canada the fair use doctrine suggest that it *should* be legal for me to rip a copy of a DVD for my personal playback in another medium (it's roughly the same as making an audio cassette copy of a vinyl record.)

I'm generally of the view that the companies that market media products should focus on improving the quality of those products in order to encourage us to buy them, rather than branding us as criminals. Then again, I still buy music whereas some people seem to not do that at all anymore.

How many people care?

[Anonymous Coward]

Outside of Slashdot's readership, nobody cares about DRM.

There are vanishingly few "screwed over" customers "angry" about HDCP. Most people never even see the "restrictions" on their "freedom." They subscribe to cable, buy their BluRay players, buy their disks, and it all works just fine. If they didn't, then these stories would be in Time Magazine (or, better yet, TV Guide) and not on Slashdot.

Re:How many people care?

[vux984]

There are vanishingly few "screwed over" customers "angry" about HDCP. Most people never even see the "restrictions" on their "freedom." They subscribe to cable, buy their BluRay players, buy their disks, and it all works just fine. If they didn't, then these stories would be in Time Magazine (or, better yet, TV Guide) and not on Slashdot.

For a couple reasons:
1) Consumers are retarded. I know of lots of people with HDTVs that watch the game stretched and distorted on an SD channel and think its the bees knees. Some of them even have access to the same channel in actual HD and don't even know it.

These people wouldn't know HDCP had downsampled their blu-ray on their non HDCP compliant device unless it hit them over the head with hammer.

And savvy people, the ones who know, mostly just buy compatible hardware.

2) The reality is HDCP really isn't screwing that many people over... at least not yet. That shoe hasn't dropped yet, and it probably won't drop until its obsolete, and people start fuming that their blu-ray disks don't work anymore on anything. And that's not going to happen for a while.

In my opinion DRM in general isn't going to hit people HARD until something MAJOR gets taken down while the DRM they use is in wide use. e.g. Apple closing the iTunes Music store is probably the only thing that would do it -today-. So far all the DRM hits have been minor league... Major League Baseball killing their drm format, or first generation blu-ray players not working with new discs... stuff that only hits small early adopter markets.

Sooner or later though, something big will get taken down, and people at large will sit up and notice. Probably won't be for another 10+ years though.

Re:How many people care?

[Gilmoure]

In this case, he hooked up his laptop to a projector and got the Not Authorized Display.

D'oh!

Re:How many people care?

[caitsith01]

It's only a matter of time. Slashdotters are just the amphibians of the DRM-world, we are more sensitive to small changes in the climate than the average organism. The levels of idiocy imposed by hardware and software manufacturers has not yet reached its zenith.

"Normal" people will start getting angry pretty soon, when they can't hook together ordinary AV hardware and have it just work, and when their seemingly physical media of various kinds mysteriously stops working under certain circumstances. The market for DRM-free gear will also grow, I predict (it already exists, and is a touted feature on some hardware and software).

Re:How many people care?

[Lumpy]

More and more cable boxes complain about HDCP handshake failures. the latest Comcast box complains about "INSECURE VIDEO PATH!" and will shut down.

I have several customers pissed about that one.

Re:How many people care?

[aaarrrgggh]

It is much easier to use VGA for home theater and conference rooms than DVI (just need a balun on either end and you can use CAT-5 structured cabling with VGA). VGA supports the same resolutions as DVI and HDMI. This alone is a huge reason why the whole HDCP issue is a pain in the ass.

It is a battle that we, the customers, should not have to put up with.

*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

The more I hear about Apple, the more I like Microsoft because they did the same thing years ago, thus proving they have a better understanding of the business.

I didn't really mind when Apple locked their hardware. After all, it's their hardware. I didn't really mind when Apple locked their iPods. After all, I could use a Creative Zen. I didn't mind when they refused to remove the iPod-only DRM on ITMS. After all, I prefer buying CDs and ripping them myself, since it's almost the same price, with virtually no hassle or copy "protection". But now, one of the best OS on the market will feature built-in, OS-level DRM? Fuck that. I won't be buying an Apple any time soon, which is a shame because I was planning to do just that with the Chrismas money.

So Microsoft is barely starting to play ball. Apple is locking it's products more and more, and locking the users of the products. Google starts forking Open Source projects to proprietary code (OpenID). The IT world is becoming more and more confusing.

I think it's time to read In the Beginning was the Command Line again.

So...

[Hennell]

if MacBooks have copy-protecion now, does this mean I'll no longer be able to copy and upload them to Pirate Bay?

Re:old

[Surt]

Please go back to Digg. Slashdot is not better than Digg because of the timeliness of the stories. Slashdot is better than Digg because of the user community.

It will never stop

[www.blogLinux.org]

Yet another example of the grip proprietary corporations will continue to impose on their users.

Re:HDCP, not "built-in copy protection"

[Alereon]

That's certainly true, I'm not defending Apple's choice to make this a requirement. It's just that, aside from the analog portion, this really isn't anything new. When you buy DRM-encumbered media, you should expect some degree of jerking around. Which is why you shouldn't buy DRM-encumbered media :)

Questions

[tobias.sargeant]

1) I thought that it was permissible under the HDCP spec for the video to be played downscaled to 480p? If so, why isn't this happening? If not, what does Vista do/when did that change?

2) Especially without wall-to-wall TPM, why on earth are we worrying about the display as a digital hole? Scraping frames as they pass over the display connection seems about the _worst_ way imaginable to rip a protected stream. There are issues with audio/video sync, dropped frames and recompression that are all avoided by getting at the decrypted but not decoded stream - something that simply can't be controlled without TPM (and probably not with TPM, either).

How is this news?

[Nabeel_co]

Vista compatible computers have had this for years. It's called HDCP and if you want to view HD content at an actual HD resolution, you need to have HDCP compatible hardware. Apple is obviously readying themselves to start offering Blu-Ray video, probably at Macworld this January...

And the hackaround will arrive, when?

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Next week?

Next month?

Early next year?

It's really kind of stunning how stupid they think people are.

RS

Re:Sensational Much?

[PoderOmega]

This is NOTHING like the all-pervasive DRM that infests Visturd(TM) at every turn

I run Vista and I'm not really sure what you are talking about. What extra DRM does Vista have that XP does not? Whatever it is, it is definately not "all-pervasive", or I would have noticed.

Re:Sensational Much?

[tknd]

Wait so if Microsoft implements copy protection measures in their OS it is bad and evil, but when Apple decides to have DRM in iTunes/iPod, lock down iPhones to a single provider, and now implement HDCP preventing you from playing DRM'ed content you purchased legally on your own hardware, it is business as usual?

Arrr

[je ne sais quoi]

Well, I think I can safely speak for all mac fans when I say...Arrr! Run up the Jolly Roger! If these lilly-livered landlubbers think they can saddle me with DRM laden crap, I'll get me multi-media from other sources besides iTunes.

What title would you be able to play onLinux only?

[rpp3po]

Without seeming to flame (flame mode if you like), we've had experience of locked down platform with Apple's iPhone. Now Apple join Microsoft in having a locked down OS for media playback, nobody can feel smug or superior (apart from Linux users).

Linux users can feel superior for not being able to legally play HD Blu-ray titles or for not being able to buy HD video from iTunes??
Yes Linux users can use software employing AACS and BD+ hacks, but so can Mac OS X and Vista users - even on HDCP enabled hardware. So what's the advantage of Linux regarding this now again?

Re:Sensational Much?

[Blakey Rat]

Just ignore it, it's a Slashdot myth that Vista has some magical form of DRM that "slows down" everything on your computer. That's as specific as it ever gets. If you ask for evidence of it, they always link to the same one article that refers to MP3 playback on a beta release as "proof."

I've asked about this about a dozen times, and I've never gotten a satisfactory reply. I've also asked for repro instructions for a series of actions that would result in the magical DRM blocking a user action. The simple fact is that the only DRM in Vista is in WMP; the same way the only DRM in OS X is in iTunes. There's no horrible conspiracy, and your computer isn't being "slowed down".

A Modest Proposal

[ewhac]

I'd like, if I may, to take a stab at recasting HDCP from an unqualified evil to a qualified boon for users.

We've discovered that well-heeled snoops using sophisticated radio equipment can, from a non-trivial distance, pick off the EM signals coming out of your monitor and reconstruct the image you're viewing. HDCP would thwart this, protecting the user's privacy. So HDCP can be seen as a pro-user security measure.

By re-casting HDCP as a system security feature, it then becomes obvious where control of HDCP should lie: In the user's hands. If HDCP were under my control, and didn't cost any extra in terms of CPU cycles or power consumption, I'd turn it on and leave it that way. Extra privacy for free!

But more importantly, by re-casting HDCP as a data security feature, applications attempting to manipulate it are correctly seen as hostile. If J-Random-Videoplayer tries to flip the system HDCP settings one way or another, they should get smacked down with EPERM and go no further. Even better, a dialog should pop up and say, "An unprivileged application is attempting to discover the current settings of display encryption (HDCP). This is a system security setting which should be accessed only by administrative programs. How should the request be handled? ()Report as enabled ()Report as disabled ()Report current setting ()Reject request"

Discuss :-).

Schwab

Re:A Modest Proposal

[hplus]

Unfortunately, the EM signals (as I understand it) are radiated from the image displayed on the screen, and thus encrypting bits as they travel to the screen won't make a difference. I like the way you think, though.

Get pissy with me and I'm gone.

[Qbertino]

I'm a mac user. I've used Linux for 11 years now, I've used Windows back in the day for StarCraft or when it was neccesary for work (and on my jobs workstation) and I use OS X today whenever I want zero-fuss integration and need to run the Flash IDE to draw up some RIA components. I still use Debian and Ubuntu aswell, however.

I'm typing this on my Mac Mini with Tiger - with the pricey but neat new aluminum mac KB attached - and my last computer purchase was the famous classic 12" G4 macbook, trusted subnotebook of hackers and geeks all around the world. The fluorescent light needs longer time to fully light up, but after 5 years it still is a piece of integrated hard- and software that I love to use on a regular basis. In a nutshell: I'm a computer expert and I like my macs and I can name solid reasons why I do.

Apple has a rock-solid multiplier in me, as I - as most geeks - am the opinion-leader in all things concerning IT and computers for at least 50 people that know me well enough to know my profession. I can inmediately think of at least 3 people who have gotten macs also due to largely my influence on their decision.

That aside I can only say: Get pissy with me and I'm right back to Linux on x86 only. As soon as I have to fuss around with media not playing on my computers I'm gone, mac mini and 13" unibody MacBook be damned. I'd rather fuss around with half-finished OSS projects or crappy printer integration on a dell laptop that looks and handles like a piece of shit than having some DRM scheme wasting my time. If Apple even thinks about pressing the lock-in game, I'm gone and I will stop recommending Apple instantly. And I'll start discouraging people from buying them.

My 2 Euros.

Would that include getting the free copy?

[MattW]

I'm thinking the easiest way around it is to just download a copy. Seriously, wtf, people - do you not like having customers?

I damn near gave up buying media of any kind because of copy protection, and so I do without. Yay Amazon MP3 store to the rescue. But I'm getting completely sick of this.

It's time to push Congress for a Consumer's Digital Purchases Bill of Rights that forces compatibility. If you want DRM so bad, it's your job to make it work.

Re:Would that include getting the free copy?

[lowlymarine]

You think Congress will help? Who do you think passed the DMCA in the first place? Fairies?

Re:Would that include getting the free copy?

[rockout]

No, the people, sorry, corporations, fighting *for* DRM don't line up, they just hire lobbyists and make lots and lots of campaign donations.

Which, as we've seen, is often far more effective.

Re:Would that include getting the free copy?

[JoeMerchant]

I buy my music on CD - still - because I am used to being able to copy them onto MP3s using tools of my choice, at compression quality of my choice, without DRM. Yeah, downloading an .MP3 might be easier, but the bulk of my CD collection is 20+ years old, I can't imagine keeping track of a DRM restricted song file that long, therefore it is of much less long term value to me.

If I want short term music enjoyment, I'll listen to the radio, or lately net-radio, or actually go see a live performance. If I'm buying a copy of music, I expect that copy to be durable enough to pass down to my children, just as I have inherited 78 RPM Pathe' discs from my grandparents.

Re:Would that include getting the free copy?

[Lemmy Caution]

You think Congress will help? Who do you think passed the DMCA in the first place? Fairies?

That's it. I'm not clapping for Tinkerbell ever again.

Re:old

[Lemmy Caution]

File this under "depressing but true."

Looks like I won't be buying a Macbook

[aqui]

For all those slashdoters that work at apple: Make sure you let your Marketing department know that this has cost them a long time customer.

I have a powerbook G4 and I recently bought a mac mini for my wife.

I was planning to get a new Macbook for Xmas.

However hearing about this has changed my mind. I will not let a company dictate what my fair use rights are. I'm disappointed, its so short sighted on Apples part. Technology companies should stick to technology and let our courts and elected members of government worry about our rights and rights of content producers (admittedly they haven't done a good job either).

I moved away from Windows because of this (that and stability issues). I know from the Windows media player 10 or higher behaviour that it won't let me play is my own content (I created it, I own the copyright) and home videos over a projector...

It's bad enough when I have to change software, in this case an open source player (VLC) solved the problem for me. If the "crippleware" is OS and hardware based the only thing at that point is to chose an uncrippled product.

It's too bad. Apple does do a good job with hardware etc.. I've been very satisfied with the Powerbook G4 I have.

I will now be looking at a nice small laptop with an AMD CPU running Linux (probably Ubuntu). If anyone has any suggestions let me know. :)

Thanks.

Re:Looks like I won't be buying a Macbook

[mr_zorg]

And I suppose that you're similarly boycotting Blu-Ray discs, HDTV tuners, HD DVRs and anything else that uses HDMI? Because if not, that's hypocritical. This DRM is nothing more than HDCP and anything using HDMI has it.

Re:Looks like I won't be buying a Macbook

[aqui]

Actually I've avoided anything HD particularly for that reason (DRM)...

I'm hoping that before I'm forced to change because normal DVDs aren't available anymore that the industry will have come to its senses (wishful thinking I know... :} ) and be producing technology without DRM crippling features.

I don't know about you but "nothing more" than _not_ being able to use the technology I paid for the way I want to use it is a big deal.

The next step after DRM is in place is to charge you again for every copy of a movie or song you already own. In other words you cant copy music from you CD collection to your MP3 player or your PC and listen to it. DRM will prevent that. You will have to pay again for each copy...

After that... the next step is to charge "per play" 5 cents every time you listen to the song...

Then the next step is to create cycle of new player technologies and the next generation player won't play the previous generations content and you'll have to pay for the music again...

It's a slippery slope once you accept lock in...

The only way to send a message is not to buy crippled hardware. If a technology won't sell then it sends a clear message.

I'd rather give up some features in a product than my freedom to use it the way I want.

Re:Looks like I won't be buying a Macbook

[KlausBreuer]

Well, *I* certainly am.

The switch from VCR Tapes to DVD Disks was well worth it. The movies look very nice and clear, the medium doesn't wear out, and takes up a lot less space - in addition to supporting several languages and the like.

Tell me the advantages of HDMI again? Higher resolution? Don't really need that, DVDs pretty good. DRM out the wazoo? *Really* don't need that. Higher prices? Oh wow, how lovely.

Re:Looks like I won't be buying a Macbook

[TheRaven64]

The correct address is sjobs@apple.com. Emails sent there do get read and replied to, although (obviously) not all (or even most) by Steve himself.

So 1984...

[kulakovich]

... will be EXACTLY like 1984... Twenty four years. Oh well. They had a good run.

Re:What title would you be able to play onLinux on

[superbus1929]

If that's their definition of "legal", then fuck legality.

This is not a dealbreaker

[basicio]

Apple fans ignore so much already. Why would you think that they're going to be bothered by more DRM?

of "blacklisting players"

[v1]

The way that works (correct me if I'm wrong here) is that each title has a "title key" (randomly generated exclusively for that release) that is used to encrypt the content.

Sony has created a set of "vendor keys", lets say 1000 of them, to give out to anyone that wants to make a bluray player and agrees to play by their rules.

When a movie is pressed to bluray, the movie's titlekey is encrypted separately 1000 times, once for each vendor key, and is stored on the disc in a title key dictionary. As long as you know at least one vendor key, you can retrieve the title key. Now after apple signs on the dotted DMCA line, they are assigned and given one of the vendor keys. (lets say it's key #256) 256's private key is placed on the bluray player firmware apple ships with. The player uses that key to decrypt copy #256 of the title key from the title key dictionary on the disc. It can't decrypt any of the other 999 copes since it only has private key for #256.

Lets say the firmware is hacked.

Once sony figures out that key #256 is being used by a hacked player, they "revoke" it. This means that every title released after this point will no longer have an entry in the title key dictionary for key # 256. So anyone with an older apple bluray player will not be able to view the new movie because it cannot get the title key from the disc.

Every disc they have that they bought up to the point of revocation will continue to work indefinitely on the older player, because the old discs will all still have a title key in position 256 in their title key dictionary.

At that point if apple wants to get back into the game, the RIAA will force them to strengthen the security in their player firmware to make it more difficult to hack, before they give them a new vendor key. Apple will push this out as a firmware update and once again all their bluray players will work with all titles, old and new.

If it gets hacked again, it's possible sony will just say too bad so sad and refuse to give them another key regardless of what apple is willing to do. At that point all the players with the vulnerable firmware will cease forever to work with new releases.

I know I'm missing several layers of other nasties such as the bluray player vm, but this is the part that's relevant here. Sony can't remotely brick or otherwise damage your bluray player, and cannot prevent it from being able to play discs that it already can play. They can only prevent your player from working on discs released after they decide to drop the hammer.

Re:of "blacklisting players"

[v1]

So what happens if the "hacked" firmware switches Apple's key with, say, the PS3's? Would Sony be stuck?

Part of their agreement to get a key is certain steps must be taken by the vendors when writing their firmware and making their hardware, to make the private key difficult to extract. Any vendor that "loses control" over their key simply requests another one. Sony revokes their old key, causing all new disks to not work with the old firmware. The vendor pushes a firmware update to their players (either by download/usb thumb drive or internet download) to get the new key which is embedded in the new firmware. This is why practically all bluray players have internet connections. It's not a convenience for you so much as it is to make it possible and practical for vendors to recover from getting their key revoked by Sony. No vendor wants their vendor key publicized, but they have to take that into account. If it does get released, and you don't have a way to update all your customers after you get a new key, you've essentially "bricked" all your previously sold units. (at least in the eyes of the consumer, being unable to play new content) And that may be enough RMAs to pull you under.

In your example, if someone managed to extract the PS3's key and embed it in a free bluray ripping software, (unlikely because they "wrote the book" on steps you should take to protect it, but certainly not impossible) they would simply revoke their own key and push a software update to your PS3, required for viewing new movies, like any other vendor.

The only way to beat sony at this game is to reverse engineer or otherwise break the encryption to recover en-masse the entire set of vendor private keys. If that list were to be made public, then Sony would have two options. (1) revoke ALL keys and start from scratch, (requiring all bluray players in the world to receive a firmware update) or (2) give up on it. Right now if a key is compromised, they have hundreds (thousands?) of as yet unassigned vendor keys in the dictionary on every disc being made, so revoking one and handing out another is not a problem because it's already on all the existing discs. But if you have to start over, it makes a bit of a mess because all the old discs only have the old dictionary, and so players would need to have two vendor keys, an old one to play old discs, and a new one to play new discs. I suppose they wouldn't mind that all so much but it may be enough deterrent to make them consider option (2).

That's why the vendors have to sign the agreement and take certain steps to protect their keys. There's a limited number of vendor keys available to be assigned from the start. (anyone happen to know the exact number?) So they can't just go revoking keys every week, they'd run out too soon.

I've read some recent information about "processing keys" being discovered, I don't know if that means someone has found a way to break the entire dictionary. Being able to break the entire dictionary is of course the best thing to see happen. It doesn't bring the whole system crashing down, but drags it down to the effectiveness that is presently on DVDs. (which is essentially non existent now with apps like Mac The Ripper and Handbrake out and about) - meaning open apps can be written to break any disc currently in production.

Ya I guess I am a bit behind the times here. Not sure if I'm getting this right but it appears that the "processing key" is the ONE key that encrypts the content of any bluray disc. The title key isn't actually required to decrypt the content if you know the processing key. Gee that stinks for them I guess. Makes pretty much all of the above a moot point. I'm surprised the bluray ripping apps haven't been popping up like dandelions already. Guess not enough people have bluray drives in their computers yet. Funny how THAT is what's causing this to not hit the fan very fast.

"Cry me a river", indeed

[Si-UCP]

They implemented this crap because if they say no and stick up for their consumers they know they'll get passed by other parties as a content delivery method.

So, in other words, are you kind of saying that Apple was forced by Hollywood, et al. to do this? Are you essentially reiterating what the GP quoted, but twisting it to cast him in a negative light, but accusing him as a fanboy? Are you essentially proving GP's point? Oh, by the way: the article has very little to do with FairPlay, and everything to do with HDCP.

Re:What title would you be able to play onLinux on

[jedidiah]

> So what's the advantage of Linux regarding this now again?

        Linux won't suddenly cripple your output hardware because
it thinks you are doing something that the MPAA disapproves of.
Once you allow the MPAA into the core of your OS, then that
becomes a very real problem.

Re:What title would you be able to play onLinux on

[Bynds]

Without seeming to flame (flame mode if you like), we've had experience of locked down platform with Apple's iPhone. Now Apple join Microsoft in having a locked down OS for media playback, nobody can feel smug or superior (apart from Linux users).

Linux users can feel superior for not being able to legally play HD Blu-ray titles or for not being able to buy HD video from iTunes?? Yes Linux users can use software employing AACS and BD+ hacks, but so can Mac OS X and Vista users - even on HDCP enabled hardware. So what's the advantage of Linux regarding this now again?

With Linux I don't have to pay a few hundred dollars for the privilege. Pay 300 bucks and still have to hack it? No thank you

Re:What title would you be able to play onLinux on

[JoeMerchant]

I really don't need 1080p to enjoy a movie. Most theaters I've been to lately seem to have about 600 line equivalent resolution - really big screen, but not too sharp.

Yes, but they can't revoke it now.

[plasmacutter]

a 2007 crack is irrevocable.

this is why we have things like anydvd HD, etc, and why they pushed out BD+, which was ALSO cracked.

For further reference on the ease of ripping BLU-RAY for naive users, see this link

Game over, and once again, the MPAA loses.

Re:Sensational Much?

[itsdapead]

Wait so if Microsoft implements copy protection measures in their OS it is bad and evil, but when Apple decides to have DRM in iTunes/iPod, lock down iPhones to a single provider, and now implement HDCP preventing you from playing DRM'ed content you purchased legally on your own hardware, it is business as usual?

Deep breath - all together now:

Absolutely, because, as has just been confirmed in the Psystar case Apple isn't a monopoly. Microsoft is. When a company has ~95% of the market they are in a position to abuse that market by stifling competition, strong-arming themselves into related markets and restricting customer choice. It is quite reasonable to hold such companies up to greater scrutiny, which is why the US, EU and other economies have "antitrust" laws.

Case in point: because Microsoft agreed to implement HDCP, the movie industry can roll it out in the confidence that 95% of computer users can, potentially, play it. This leaves the other 5% of market with a choice between implementing HDCP or conceding the high-def playback market to Microsoft.

I stopped using Itunes, and download from Amazon

[dfenstrate]

Amazon sells straight MP3's for the same price Itunes sells their DRM'd stuff. ($0.99)

I don't know how the selections compare, but I've found what I wanted so far. It's pretty nice to be able to play purchased songs on my aftermarket car stereo without buying an ipod and an expensive adapter.

The economic crisis will solve this

[justleavealonemmmkay]

I predict the economic crisis will solve this. Just like the CD market shrinked to make place for the DVD/MP3/mobile phone market, that market will shrink to make place for the basic needs and savings markets.
I predict the now massively broke consumers will turn to the free alternatives, which are the ones for which DRM has already been removed (the warez version). The more well off will become more conscious and will only buy stuff the can copy for their broke friends. Hollywood and the VG industry just will have to live and build its business model around it: you can't get money from where there is no money.

Re:HDCP, not "built-in copy protection"

[foniksonik]

FYI the new Macbook's mentioned do not have an analog out port.

They only have DisplayPort.... so to connect to an analog display you have to use a converter. Unfortunately the converter can't tell the computer that you're not *really* using the DisplayPort capabilities.... so the computer just assumes that you've got a non-compliant digital display attached and duly refuses to provide playback.

What you need is for someone to engineer a dongle of some sort that sends the proper HDCP signal and passes through the video/audio to whatever is on the other side.

Not copy protection, almost the opposite

[Sloppy]

This is not copy protection. If you have a file, whether DRMed or not, you'll still be able to make a billion copies of it on one of these Macs, share it with a billion other people, etc.

All this does, is prevent users from playing DRMed content. Apple is just saying, "if you have one of our news Macs, don't buy anything DRMed, because our Macs are designed to make sure that it does not work. You can buy it, but you can't watch it. If you need to be able to watch your movies, your only choice is to obtain DRM-free copies. If DRM-free copies are not for sale, you'll have to pirate it."

This is one of the most MPAA-hostile things Apple has done to date. I still wouldn't buy a Mac, but they've scored a point with me for making their hardware incompatible with DRM.

DRM becomes trouble when it ruins user experience

[rob_benson]

I don't think the DRM changes will be a big deal unless it intrudes on the actual user experience. If the actual operation of the OS is hindered by DRM, then it will ruin ease of use and cause users to look elsewhere.

A good example is how itunes works vs the old buymp3.com site. itunes is pretty easy to use, and I have not faced any arbitrary DRM limitations (buymp3 only allowed playback on the 2 initial computers and 3 CD burns -- this is draconian - and stupid, I could just burn the CD and re-encode it to mp3).

Apple is pretty good at UI, and hopefully has not made a major misstep, but I am going to keep an eye on the situation before buying my next Mac. If this new layer of DRM hinders usability, it's back to Ubuntu for me. I agree with so many others who posted here -- DRM only hurts the honest folk.

Uselessness of HDCP

[esarjeant]

My only experience with HDCP has been entirely negative. Until about a year ago, my ATI Radeon video board had beautiful DVI output that worked with my first-generation HDCP-enabled Samsung monitor.

Without even thinking, last year I upgraded to a much beefier Nvidia board. Unfortunately, once it is coupled with my HDCP enabled monitor the result is a blank screen.

It's completely useless to me.

What I can't understand is this happens by just attempting to boot my computer and run any kind of graphical interface (Windows or X11). Is this the kind of "protection" that HDCP is suppose to offer?

Do I have time to figure this out? No. To be honest, at this point I have no interest in upgrading my graphic hardware ever again and will simply live with the resolution I can get out of my DVI->VGA adapter.