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?

Intel: "Trust me!"

[ITRambo]

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.

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.

Re:Most "purists" are hypocrites

[WorBlux]

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.