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.

Comments

It affects my freedom to watch game of thrones

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re: It affects my freedom to watch game of thrones

[saloomy]

It also affects your ability to trust your system. When there is unauditable code, you have no idea of its malicious or poorly written. Thatâ(TM)s the problem. There are going to be asshats on here who say no one does code review anyway, but that isnâ(TM)t the point. The point is you become no longer free to even if you wanted to. In this day and age of all the software bugs, bad implementations and massive data breaches and hacks, how on earth is closed-source client-side code or hardware still a thing?

Linux should support things that work

[Wuhao]

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?

Re: Linux should support things that work

[c6gunner]

Takes a bit longer to crack, and pirating become less trivial / useful so it does deter a few users on the margin therefore the value isn't exactly zero.

I would argue the opposite. DRM often ends up causing playback issues even with purchased media due to various glitches and incompatibilities. This causes frustration and disgust amongst consumers, which could very well drive some of them towards piracy as a solution. Assuming they didn't already pirate before, they're quickly going to learn how easy and convenient it is, making them more likely to do it again in the future.

The real issues...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Errrrr....

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

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.

Incredible the amount of shit people accept.

[blind biker]

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.