Slashdot Mirror
Why Linux HDCP Isn't the End of the World (collabora.com)
"There is no reason for the open-source community to worry..." writes Daniel Stone, who heads the graphics team at open-source consultancy Collabora. mfilion quotes Collabora.com:
Recently, Sean Paul from Google's ChromeOS team, submitted a patch series to enable HDCP support for the Intel display driver. HDCP is used to encrypt content over HDMI and DisplayPort links, which can only be decoded by trusted devices... However, if you already run your own code on a free device, HDCP is an irrelevance and does not reduce freedom in any way....
HDCP support is implemented almost entirely in the hardware. Rather than adding a mandatory encryption layer for content, the HDCP kernel support is dormant unless userspace explicitly requests an encrypted link. It then attempts to enable encryption in the hardware and informs userspace of the result. So there's the first out: if you don't want to use HDCP, then don't enable it! The kernel doesn't force anything on an unwilling userspace.... HDCP is only downstream facing: it allows your computer to trust that the device it has been plugged into is trusted by the HDCP certification authority, and nothing more. It does not reduce user freedom, or impose any additional limitations on device usage.
HDCP support is implemented almost entirely in the hardware. Rather than adding a mandatory encryption layer for content, the HDCP kernel support is dormant unless userspace explicitly requests an encrypted link. It then attempts to enable encryption in the hardware and informs userspace of the result. So there's the first out: if you don't want to use HDCP, then don't enable it! The kernel doesn't force anything on an unwilling userspace.... HDCP is only downstream facing: it allows your computer to trust that the device it has been plugged into is trusted by the HDCP certification authority, and nothing more. It does not reduce user freedom, or impose any additional limitations on device usage.
When Game of Thrones gets interrupted in the middle because the HDCP checks fail, it takes away my freedom!
Copy protection almost always comes at a cost to usability.
#firstworldproblems
How long until this implemented by default in systemd and you can't turn it off without ripping the guts out of your system?
We've seen what Intel's Management Engine did, it made systems less secure while keeping a backdoor to your system open at boot. Now, nothing to concern yourself with here either. No thanks, Intel.
I can't currently play on Linux one way or another over plain old VGA so I'm not sure why I would knowing install this patch?
HDCP, like any form of DRM, ends up doing more harm than good to the user. As far as I know from the Windows machines, HDCP is enabled by DVD and Bluray players - probably 4K Netflix too. I cannot think of any other reason to enable HDCP other than licensed multimedia archives. I would not enable HDCP on my computer for most of the typical usage scenarios of any personal computer.
Except when Firefox, Chrome and the rest of willing hollywood goon start "requesting" that you enable hdcp, or else no html5 video? How long will it take until the shuttleworth (you know, the guy with the spine of a jellyfish in sulfuric acid) enables it by default (and ms remands the same for secure boot shif signature)?
How stupid do you think we are?
DRM does not work. If you doubt this, name for me one piece of copyrighted material HDCP is intended protect that is not already available for piracy online. This cannot be done, therefore, anything I could watch if HDCP is supported, I can already watch without it. So if there's no value-add for the user, and no value-add for the media companies, and it contradicts the open nature which has made Linux so successful in the first place, why should it be included?
"It does not reduce user freedom, or impose any additional limitations on device usage."
Yeah, it just allows others to do so, and doesn't even provide any beneficial functionality in return. Go figure.
The are many problems with this, in no particular order:
1) HDCP imposes restrictions on what users can do with content they've legally purchased. I should be able to record content that I'm sending over an HDMI cable to my TV, but HDCP prevents this.
2) It's an inconvenience to users, while not actually impeding piracy. HDCP encryption has been broken, so it's not secure. There are also some HDMI splitters that can remove HDCP encryption.
3) If HDCP is supported by more systems, it does provide convenience to users. However, many of those users are likely to tolerate HDCP, further allowing DRM to become entrenched.
HDCP stops me from recording the HDMI signal that comes out of my cable box. Most of the channels are protected by setting the CCI flag to copy once, which prevents me from recording them on any software other than Windows Media Center. Were it not for the DRM, it would be completely legal for me to record content through either of those means. If I can easily record the content myself, it takes away the incentive to pirate that content from the internet. I might share the content with friends by giving them copies on flash drives, but small scale piracy has been around at least since the days of VHS. However, it reduces the incentive to participate in large scale piracy like obtaining the content from torrents. I hypothesize that DRM like HDCP actually encourages piracy.
If the summary is accurate, all you have to do is modify the kernel to tell user space that the encryption is on and not enable it. Then everyone is happy.
Redundancy is redundant!
Proof that DRM rots the brain.
So, can the HDCP source be modified, to say lie to the application, telling it the downstream device is trusty, even if it isn't? If the encryption is in hardware, then there's some driver or shim that mediates between user-land and the hardware; modify this to be a no-op, while reporting back success?
Why would it be?
DeCSS is a crack. You can't compare DeCSS to HDCP. You couldn't avoid CSS at all without a crack. HDCP allows you to not use it, CSS did not.
You're being disingenuous here.
However, one was "good" because it wasn't authorized by THE MAN (DeCSS) but the other one is evil because it doesn't let the purists roleplay in their basements about being the good rebels against the "evil" empire.
The difference is that using DeCSS was the act of removing an onerous, pointless restriction by the media companies, while using HDCP is complying with those restrictions.
"This Churchill guy is a hypocrite. He wants to fight the Germans, but gets so angry when you suggest we appease them instead. I mean, fighting the Germans means we don't get destroyed by them, and appeasement also means we don't get destroyed by them."
It makes it look like it is in any way acceptable, to support the bought laws that enable the organized crime to keep not working, yet rake in money to finance their massive cocaine addictions on the backs of creative people and their fans!
If it wasn't a crime to take the *result* (information/data) of the work of some creative people, pay them *once*, make countless copies of that result, and demand actual real money that we have to actually work for, in return for a mere *copy*,
then it wouldn't be a crime either, to take the *result* (money) of the work of some fans, do some creative work for them *once*, make countless copies of that result, and demand real actual work that people actually had expenses and took time for, in return for mere *copies*.
The former is just as much criminal as the latter, no matter what any laws say, and for exactly the same reasons.
(They are both in the same category as theft and robbbery.)
Every single time I've heard the phrase, "...does not reduce freedom in any way...." it ALWAYS turns out to be a lie. The context is almost irrelevant.
It's a red flag- if they're telling you they're "not doing XYZ" or that "XYZ won't affect you", you can usually bet your ass that they are in fact doing "XYZ" and/or it does indeed affect you in some way.
Much like net neutrality- Comcast would never ever throttle your connection or block certain sites, they just want the ability to do so, even though they would never ever do that. But they want to be able to anyway. Hmmm.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
"This Churchill guy is a hypocrite. He wants to fight the Germans, but gets so angry when you suggest we appease them instead. I mean, fighting the Germans means we don't get destroyed by them, and appeasement also means we don't get destroyed by them."
I'm sorry, Sir, but I'm going to have to issue you with a $50 Fixed Penalty Internet Ticket for Godwinning.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
AMD AMD AMD! intel better not force this to be moved to on all the time
Except when Firefox, Chrome and the rest of willing hollywood goon start "requesting" that you enable hdcp, or else no html5 video?
Then I will view non-Hollywood video. And even if the ISPs throttle it, 1.5 Mbps is enough to stream at 480p.
How long will it take until the shuttleworth (you know, the guy with the spine of a jellyfish in sulfuric acid) enables it by default
I don't know how long it will take, but I can guess the result: more adoption of Linux Mint Debian Edition.
If [HDCP] is used by an xbox game, then it only forbids you from recording your gaming sessions.
Which is exactly what the game publishers want, especially if they have a policy of asserting copyright against players who upload videos of their game session to video hosts.
People have replaced perfectly working video connectors/standards (VGA and DVI) with DRM-laden, controlled up the wazoo stuff like HDMI and DisplayPort. People have replaced perfectly working, and safe, boot firmware - BIOS - with shit that is controlled not by the user but by a third party, and it is not safe, and it can be altered from userland (UEFI). People are in the process of replacing a decent if closed-source OS (Windows 7) with an ad-laden, telemetry-laden OS that reboots when uncle Microsoft says so - Windows 10.
It is amazing that people are OK with taking all this crap up the ass and after a while, actually feel happy about it. I am glad there are exceptions, but we are a tiny, insignificant minority.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
That leaves out anything running UEFI, of which one of it's features is root kiting.
why do I feel there is a knife behind my back?
We can use ME to get the keys to our displays and unlock HDCP.
If HDCP requests can be set up to always return "success" then I'm all for it.
I don't know where you studied history and logic, but you should ask for a refund.
Fighting the Germans doesn't mean you won't get destroyed by them. Beating them does.
At the bottom of the
This dude is missing a basic point: He's saying if YOU don't want it, YOU don't enable it - but YOU might be a consumer using some kind of box that outputs this encrypted HDCP signal with no ability to recompile the fucking kernel or whatever hoops you have to jump through to "not enable it". It's possible to use it, so now it enables the creation of an entire class of systems with this bit flipped on and this unwanted functionality permanently on with no option to disable it. Of course whether it's "wanted" comes down to a war of "should we enable companies to create products using this tech that we think is evil?"
Please select from one of the following options:
(1) Never Requires Encryption
(2) Accept Encryption / Unencryption
(3) Does not accept Unencrypted Data
the linux kernel - used in the majority of TVs, PVRs, STBs and Android devices - used to be at level (1). it's now moved to level (2). this is the "Green Light" for manufacturers to start producing HDMI devices at level (3). so tell me: in what way does this decision NOT reduce user freedom?
As long as it can be compiled out, this isn't a problem. There's support for all sorts of questionable shit in Linux, and most of it's written by companies so they can piggyback off of the public's work to get income.
Compile it out if you don't want it. That's what I already do. This isn't news to anyone except the illiterate.
captcha: autocrat; how fitting. :)
DeCSS let you reclaim the format of DVD. You no longer had to watch DVD content on devices "approved" by the coalition. It broke the power of the distributor to limit the way you or I can consume content.
HDCP is precisely the opposite, handing over control of how and where you watch media to the middleman. Like CSS, HDCP in this case is useless without the specter of the DMCA and other "anti-circumvention" legislation, as you could easily create a side channel in the driver to dump video streams to disk. Unless upstream providers only intend to enable content on devices already locked down with a RIAA rootkit, in which (highly likely) case the code is useless to anyone not already in a strong middleman position with their own custom devices (Google, Verizon, Amazon...)
And you can like the content of the artists, writers, and performers without liking the methods the distributors and investors use to squeeze out every cent of profit they possibly can out of a work, especially when they reduce the average person's control over their own devices.
Well, isn't HDCP really someone else's computer *fully* determining what you see? If it encrypts the monitor's image stream, can't it modify it?
What if you've got an HDCP-protected YouTube stream playing in the background as you're logged on to Net-banking and then happen to click the browser's address bar? Could HDCP *hardware* insert a fake 're-enter your banking credentials' message and image-capture your password as it appears in the address bar? Remember "Reflections on trusting trust" and the Intel management engine vulnerability.
This will just make enabling encryption a little bit easier for vendors who make locked down media devices running Linux.
But they would enable the encryption anyway and no one needs to buy these kind of devices.
If the studio requiring HDCP on the output of a PC running a free operating system expects HDCP to be effective, the video will need to be decoded by a non-free executable on the video card in order to keep free software from seeing (and teeing) the cleartext decoded RGB or YCbCr output of the decoder. This is acceptable to some operating system distributors (Debian, Fedora, and the like), because all the non-free stuff happens out of the CPU's address space, but not in any distribution recommended by the GNU project.
The HDCP hardware is part of hardware you already have to trust not to do things like that.
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
Asking for a friend.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
6692d179032205 b4116a96425a7f ecc2ef51af1740 959d3b6d07bce4 fa9f2af29814d9
82592e77a204a8 146a6970e3c4a1 f43a81dc36eff7 568b44f60c79f5 bb606d7fe87dd6
1b91b9b73c68f9 f31c6aeef81de6 9a9cc14469a037 a480bc978970a6 997f729d0a1a39
b3b9accda43860 f9d45a5bf64a1d 180a1013ba5023 42b73df2d33112 851f2c4d21b05e
2901308bbd685c 9fde452d3328f5 4cc518f97414a8 8fca1f7e2a0a14 dc8bdbb12e2378
672f11cedf36c5 f45a2a00da1c1d 5a3e82c124129a 084a707eadd972 cb45c81b64808d
07ebd2779e3e71 9663e2beeee6e5 25078568d83de8 28027d5c0c4e65 ec3f0fc32c7e63
1d6b501ae0f003 f5a8fcecb28092 854349337aa99e 9c669367e08bf1 d9c23474e09f70
3c901d46bada9a 40981ffcfa376f a4b686ca8fb039 63f2ce16b91863 1bade89cc52ca2
4552921af8efd2 fe8ac96a02a6f9 9248b8894b23bd 17535dbff93d56 94bdc32a095df2
cd247c6d30286e d2212f9d8ce80a dc55bdc2a6962c bcabf9b5fcbe6f c2cfc78f5fdafa
80e32223b9feab f1fa23f5b0bf0d ab6bf4b5b698ae d960315753d36f 424701e5a944ed
10f61245ebe788 f57a17fc53a314 00e22e88911d9e 76575e18c7956e c1ef4eee022e38
f5459f177591d9 08748f861098ef 287d2c63bd809e e6a28a6f5d000c 7ae5964a663c1b
0f15f7167f56c6 d6c05b2bbe8800 544a49be026410 d9f3f08602517f 74878dc02827f7
d72ef3ea24b7c8 717c7afc0b55a5 0be2a582516d08 202ded173a5428 9b71e35e45943f
9e7cd2c8789c99 1b590a91f1cffd 903dca7c36d298 52ad58ddcc1861 56dd3acba0d9c5
c76254c1be9ed1 06ecb6ae8ff373 cfcc1afcbc80a4 30eba7ac19308c d6e20ae760c986
c0d1e59db1075f 8933d5d8284b92 9280d9a3faa716 8386984f92bfd6 be56cd7c4bfa59
16593d2aa598a6 d62534326a40ee 0c1f1919936667 acbaf0eefdd395 36dbfdbf9e1439
0bd7c7e683d280 54759e16cfd9ea cac9029104bd51 436d1dca1371d3 ca2f808654cdb2
7d6923e47f97b5 70e256b741910c 7dd466ed5fff2e 26bec4a28e8cc4 5754ea7219d4eb
75270aa4d3cc8d e0ae1d1897b7f4 4fe5663e8cb342 05a80e4a1a950d 66b4eb6ed4c99e
3d7e9d469c6165 81677af04a2e15 ada4be60bc348d dfdfbbad739248 98ad5986f3ca1f
971d02ada31b46 2adab96f7b15da 9855f01b9b7b94 6cef0f65663fbf eb328e8a3c6c5d
e29f0f0b1ef2bf e4a30b29047d31 52250e7ae3a4ac fe3efc3b8c2df1 8c997d15d6078b
49da8b4611ff9f b1e061bc9be995 31fd68c4ad6dc6 fd8974f0c506dd 90421c1cd2b26c
53eec84c91ed17 5159ba3711173b 25e318ddceea6a 98a14125755955 2bb97fd341cea2
3f8404769a0a8e bce5c7a45fb5d4 9608307b43f785 2a98e5856afe75 b4dbead4815cac
d1118af62c964a 3142667a5b0d14 6c6f90933acd3d 6b14a0052e2be4 1b1811fda0f554
12300aa7f10405 1919ca0bff56ea d3e2f3aad5250c 4aeeea5101d2ec 377fc499c07057
6cb1a90cdb7b11 3c839d47a4b814 25c5ac14b5ec28 4ef18646d5b9c2 95a98cc51ebd3b
310e98028e24de 092ffc76b79f44 0740a1ca2d4737 b9f38966257c99 a75afc7454abe4
a6dd815be8ccbf ec2cac2df0c675 41f7636aa4080f 30e87b712520fd d5dfdc6d3266ac
ee28f5479f836f 0bf8ee2112173f 43ae802fa8d52d 4e0dffd36c1eac 3cbda974bb7585
fb60a4700470e3 d9f6b6083ef13d 4a5840f02d0130 6c20ef5e35e2bf dad2f85c745b5b
61c5ddc65d3fc9 7f6ec395d4ae22 2b8906fb3996e2 e4110f59eb92ac 1cb212b44128bb
545afda80a4fd1 b1ffea547eab6b fac3d9166afce8 3fe35fe17586f2 9d082667026a4c
17ffaf1cb50145 24f27b316acfff b6bb758ec4ad60 995e8726359ef7 c44952cb424035
5ec53461dbd248 40a1586f04aee7 49ea3fa4474e52 c13e8f52c51562 30a1a70162cfb8
ccbada27b91c33 33661064d05759 3388bb6315b036 0380a6b43851fb 0228dadb44ad3d
b732565bc37841 993c0d383cfaae 0bea49476758ac accc69dbfcde8b f416ab0474f022
2b7dbcc3002502 20dc4e67289e50 0068424fde9515 64806d59eb0c18 9cf08fb2abc362
8d0ee78a6cace9 b6781bd504d105 af65fab8ee6252 64a8f8dd8e2d14 cb9d3354e06b5b
53082840d3c011 8e080bedab3c4c e30d722a455843 24955a20397c17 82495c1c5114e8
656e71c31d813d 1f0a6d291823a1 6327f9534353fa b89529c2f034fb 70e9b12205c7b3
a06c87969407a2 520bfa2fe80f90 da1efc3d345c65 313936ec023811 a8cc87128be2fa
4cd0e8645ee141 be7975519e2b63 9543d23113c2a8 3d87b0da033f22 df0464c704e9d4
7e1a30947e867e 014ae464b37935 5c4babf689fa4e c4aec0cb01cc35 328c0e4a0230e4
fdacb93b419594 26deefc8a553e6 6e75a2d790cb55 2c4554518f7396 94b77184cb145d
95f883f620a8bb edff42866a2783 7b4ee6304b711d ed56e077a4b9fb c4e60e687ff6c3
0cbf144b8f64d5 023dd10a35eddd beaa3323e999c6 d2e016b31c38c4 8d2917a888f799
18c3abd28e736b 8d38
it has been plugged into is trusted by the HDCP certification authority, and nothing more. It does not reduce user freedom, or impose any additional limitations on device usage.
HDCP requires that the entire chain - from source through display device - support HDCP. Therefore by allowing it, one then ends up needing devices (e.g video sources, video cards, monitors, etc) that *all* support HDCP. If any one of those does not, then the video will be refused. Therefore "additional limitations on device usage" are imposed by definition.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
And yet millions of people still bought it.
Your point?
If they think it's easy to manipulate it, make it very easy to disable or subvert.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
But it ends other things... or it does make a step in this direction.
- is Linux my ally or the content industry's ally?
- it marginalizes those who can't watch encumbered content even more
No, I want as little as possible of this crap near to me. And if I can't watch Netflix or Disney... too bad.
The Flynn Effect is a myth.
(3) already happened years ago. I had a display that would not work with Raspberry Pi because the Pi's display drivers do not support HDCP.
DeCSS let you reclaim the format of DVD. You no longer had to watch DVD content on devices "approved" by the coalition. It broke the power of the distributor to limit the way you or I can consume content.
Ah the altruistic bollocks excuses pouring out of the mouths of those who actually only want such software so they can get free shit. Be honest with yourself it is nothing to do about limiting the way you can consume content and everything to do with getting paid stuff for free. If it were about limiting content then nothing that is available on Netflix, Amazon or any other legitimate streaming service or any music available on Amazon or Itunes which is DRM free would be available on pirate websites. But it is, all of it. So you can shove your claim up your arse because that is where it belongs because it stinks of bullshit that much.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
This functionality cannot be used by an open source kernel. This functionality cannot be used by an open source userspace. Why should it be maintained by the open source community? It doesn't belong on kernel.org; it should stay within Google together with the rest of the binary nonsense that they develop and keep in order to fulfill their contractual obligations with Disney. Nobody said that DRM in the kernel was "the end of the world". The point is that asking the open source developers, that is the very people whom this functionality is designed to mistrust and block, to maintain its code forever, is immoral.
Who gives a shit? Just find the function IsHDCP() and make it return 1. I think these sort of code changes were done back in the 1980's to bypass assinine digital resstriction scheme's.
Of course unless you live in a free country (China, Burma, Russia, Canada) rather than a fascist state (USA, UK, Australia) you will probably get hanged for modifying the code.
> ...bollocks excuses...
USians have a federally-recognised right to engage in copyright infringement for the purpose of format-shifting a work for which they have a license. DeCSS is a tool to exercise that right.
> If it were about limiting content then nothing that is available on [paysites] ... would be available on pirate websites.
Talk about terrible arguments... Some of the users of "pirate" websites are there to format-shift what they already have a license to. Most aren't. So what?
Every single time I've heard the phrase, "...does not reduce freedom in any way...." it ALWAYS turns out to be a lie. The context is almost irrelevant.
It's a red flag- if they're telling you they're "not doing XYZ" or that "XYZ won't affect you", you can usually bet your ass that they are in fact doing "XYZ" and/or it does indeed affect you in some way.
Much like net neutrality- Comcast would never ever throttle your connection or block certain sites, they just want the ability to do so, even though they would never ever do that. But they want to be able to anyway. Hmmm.
2). this is the "Green Light" for manufacturers to start producing HDMI devices at level (3). so tell me: in what way does this decision NOT reduce user freedom?
Every choice every human makes reduces the 'freedom' of others to live in alternate worlds where that human made a different choice.
In the situation you describe- YOU ARE STILL FREE to manufacture HDMI devices at the pre-3 level. Enjoy what freedom you have. Realize that not all freedoms are worth dying for.
That's right. :( The same way I must trust Intel's management engine.
But can we trust Intel to not let _others_ take control and do such things? The more such independent 'hardware engines' a computer has, the less we can trust it.
Makes him sound like Ajit Pai - nothing will change, you will still be able to do everything you are doing now. nothing is being taken away.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
All DRM schemes are inherently flawed. They are all based on trying to simultaneously keep and tell a secret. And streaming services generally aren't DRM-free, though they often are a convenient way to access a wide array or rotating content. Because all DRM schemes are necessarily flawed as piracy protection, the only logical assumption is they they are not really about limiting piracy at all and are actually intended to serve some other purpose. (Distributor lock-in and format freezing)
Additionally there's little evidence that piracy displaces sales. The bigger danger for an artist is a lack of visibility in the market.
And if your "protection" scheme requires that you have root access to a device I purchased.... Fuck you.