On my Humax, the SD content is just saved as a program stream on the disk, but the HD content is encrypted. It means I can copy / backup content from the STB but I cant do anything with it on other devices or a PC. I recorded Children of Men from ITV HD a few nights ago and that won't even let me copy the content even in encrypted form, the STB shows a little "no copy" icon next to it in the file manager. There must be several kinds of copy protection flags the boxes are honouring.
It's quite straightforward to define a mechanism to install / remove plugins, interrogate them for the content types they support, and to allow a user to choose their default choice. Firefox already does this for regular plugins, so why do you think it would be hard for video specific ones? In fact, the existing plugin architecture would make a reasonable starting point for implementing video plugins - they could just be NPAPIs that happen to implement a certain interface for Firefox to control their playback functionality, register listeners and so on.
Mozilla doesn't have to implement anything, just make the video plugin architecture extensible. Otherwise sites will just push other browsers which do implement H264, or will use plugins like Silverlight / Flash to render the content anyway in Firefox.
I don't mean that kind of watermark. Most SoCs used for set top boxes have the facility to add watermarking to content as it is decoded. This watermarking could be a serial number unique to the box combined with any user provided information such as post code, TV licence nr, ip address (if they have the box hooked up) etc. The watermarking would be invisible to the user but recognizable in software.
If this were enabled, then in theory then Freeview could do away with copy protection, instead using passive monitoring of various P2P sites to deter file sharing. They could use the information to prosecute, or even send warning / copy disabling / kill codes to offending boxes if they so desired.
It as in HD content, as in BBC content. It as in Freesat which is a joint venture between the BBC & ITV. Freesat only offers HD content from the BBC & ITV at present.
As for DRM being broken, this depends how it is implemented and what built-in resilience / healing capabilities it has. If it's some unique key buried in each STB that scrambles the content, then perhaps. If its full broadcast encryption with keys cycling every second combined with occasional over the air changesthen probably not. Even if it were cracked, the vast majority of users wouldn't even care.
Personally I think they should forget about controlling the content and just passively watermark it. They could always send OTA kill codes or prosecute copyright infringers if a unique code was embedded into the image.
That's pretty much what Freesat boxes do right now. It's not surprising that BBC (a major stakeholder in both formats) would advance a similar proposal in Freeview HD.
Personally I think it will be fairly pointless to stop people doing what they like with the content. Just like Freesat HD, the content will be festooned with adverts, DOGs and sub-optimal encoding (both bitrate constrained and in real time) so it's hardly likely to compete with either DVD or Blu Ray. If they're that paranoid about content leaking out, they should just watermark it via hardware so it's easier to bring prosecutions if they wish.
I never said they were. However Freesat is a joint venture between the BBC & ITV and already implements a form of DRM. Therefore I do not understand why people thought Freeview would be any different, especially when it has more stakeholders.
I have a Freesat HD PVR. HD content is encrypted to the box (you can back it up but it won't play anywhere else). Some content is even flagged and won't even transfer. It must be part of the Freesat conformance requirements. Stuff is broadcast in the clear, so in theory I could use a generic DVB-S2 recorder but then I lose other Freesat features like the EPG.
If I'm hiring a game programmer I don't really care if he knows design patterns. I care if he can take a game engine and turn it inside-out in a week because we had a neat new idea that the current engine can't support.
I agree that you need a few very skilled people to tune code and experiment, people who really know their shit. But I don't see that it should be mutually exclusive with sound design practices. Code needs to be as modular, well defined, readable, maintainable and reusable as possible. It doesn't have to affect speed or turnaround. I would be very wary of any programmer who couldn't explain some design patterns or show some other indication of a programming methodology. Yes they might still turn out a game on time only for you to discover after they left that there are 10,000 lines of monolithic, unreadable crap in the middle of it.
The main problem with Firefox is that there no such thing as *THE system*, singular.
Of course there isn't, but that doesn't mean the issue is impossible to solve. In fact if you look at the way Firefox works right now, it has abstractions of various operating services - messaging, drag & drop, windows, graphics, file locations, plugins etc. Each of these abstractions is done precisely so the bulk of the code is platform netural.
There would be no difference if you were to write an abstract video / audio playback object. The object would appear to the bulk of the code as a common interface or abstract class even though it would be implemented differently on each platform. On Windows, the playback object might work over DirectShow, on OS X it might use Quicktime, on Linux it might use GStreamer or Xine. To the caller however it doesn't make any difference so long as it works as expected.
The second problem, is that you *hope* that the system's codecs will be adequate:
Hardly a biggy either. On operating systems that supply one or more codecs implementations, you test and ensure the codecs / filters meet requirements. For operating systems that don't, you revert to a stub implementation that does nothing, and direct users to a help page. e.g. The browser could state that a codec must support high profile @ 4.1.
In short Firefox can wash their hands of worrying about licencing altogether just by using what the system provides and designing the video apis appropriately such that others can extend / augment the built-in behaviour.
This would be the ideal outcome. h.264 is a really bad option.
Actually its an excellent option. It's an industry standard, there are a multitude of free and non-free tools, it has well defined profiles & levels, it has countless software & hardware implementations, it is the default encoding format for an increasing number of hardware devices and it offers excellent quality.
The simple reality is that open source codecs are never going to supplant H264 in this generation. Even google couldn't make it happen if they defaulted to an open source codec.
I can understand why Firefox and Linux might not like H264 but it's here and its a reality. So how does one go about enabling open source apps to use a licenced codec? The answer for Firefox at least seems pretty simple, IT DOESN'T NEED TO LICENCE THE CODEC. Just provide a simple video plugin architecture and implementations for operating systems which include H264 (i.e. OS X & Windows) and a stub for those that don't. It wouldn't take more than a few days before a working Linux plugin appeared.
Firefox doesn't have to ship with any H264 support, apart perhaps from a basic understanding of MP4 containers. All it has to do is check the container to see what audio / video codec is used, check with the system to see if it provides those codecs, and then either play the content or direct the user to some help where they can sort themselves out.
My nook can certainly handle EPUB stuff just fine... And Barnes & Noble claims they're going to move their entire library over to EPUB eventually... But I don't know how open and friendly the Barnes & Noble store actually is. EPUB lets you embed whatever DRM you might want. I don't know that a B&N DRMed EPUB would actually work on anything besides a nook.
I understand from the specs it supports several DRMs. But I think it would be colossally stupid for B&N to push their own DRM onto customers. After all, if I own a Nook I don't want my content stuck on just their proprietary reader. I would favour the most portable content even if that means I buy my content elsewhere. And if I don't own a Nook, I'd shop elsewhere altogether.
Apple has enough market penetration that they might just be able to force a kind of "lowest common denominator" as standard... Like it did with MP3s.
The lowest common denominator is probably EPUB but I can well see Apple thinking they have the muscle to push their own DRM over the top. Of course, if the touch device is a cut down OS X, perhaps users can install their own apps but I would not be surprised if its as much of a golden cage as the iPhone / iPod are.
But they'll pick up sales from folks with nooks and Sonys and whatever else.
Hopefully it will be the Nooks & Sonys and whatever else which bury the Kindle, or at least see Amazon open up the device. Proprietary as most other devices are in some respect, it seems that they have rallied around EPUB + optional Adobe DRM. If DRM has to exist at least it should be device and vendor neutral.
The fly in the ointment is Apple and what they intend to do. They're not exactly known for embracing standards except as a bait and switch for their own proprietary ones, so they may well support EPUB, but not the DRM everyone else is gravitating around. After all, that would let their users buy their books from anywhere and Apple simply can't allow that.
Reality says otherwise. Lots of people have bought consoles & PCs beyond the PS2. Indeed, the Wii is selling extremely well and demonstrates people will pay for a new console, one which has (modestly) better graphics than the PS2. Besides, if paying extra was their only consideration, the Wii is looking a distinctly whiffy value proposition since it costs double what a PS2 costs, and some models of 360 are actually cheaper for a more powerful system.
For me that page says - Print List Price: $3.99, Kindle Price: $2.35 includes VAT & international wireless delivery via Amazon Whispernet, You Save: $1.64 (41%). So maybe it's free to US Kindle owners, but not international ones. Poor dumb saps.
If someone wants to be anonymous, that's their perogative. If a previously anonymous service throws its doors open for anyone to see what you are doing and how long for, then that's a privacy issue. At the very least Blizzard should allow people the option not to disclose their information. It isn't hard to do, other services manage it and it's just common decency.
As for cyberstalking / cyberbullying, yes it exists and people have killed themselves or suffered other issues as a result. Even Facebook allows users to control what information they expose and who can see it and the same should be true of any social networking service or game.
Those people more than likely had deep-seated psychological problems to do with self esteem and social interaction deficiencies far before they played WoW, or any other MMO. Instead of seeking help resolving the issues, they immersed themselves in a false world of small and fast accomplishment with a greatly inflated sense of achievement.
And as such it's okay for Blizzard to create a feature that allows them to be cyberstalked and harassed?
That much has got to be pretty obvious to the whole industry already. Game journalism is corrupt and/or done by complete idiots.
If you want to see how corrupt gaming journalists are, just wait for the Next Big Game to turn up and witness what happens. The bloggers breathlessly describe how awesome their all expenses paid trip to Next Big Game HQ was, the magazines shout about their Exclusive First Review of Next Big Game, and the gaming sites are plastered with huge tailored background images and side banners for Next Big Game.
Why do journalists go along with it? Because they'll be blackballed if they don't. They won't get the exclusive (p)reviews, they won't get the all expenses paid jollies, or the backstage passes to trade shows, or the marketing junk, or the free games. And their employers won't get the advertising revenue. The likes of Rockstar are notorious for putting savage pressure on review sites to ensure the highest possible score.
Yes there are some reviewers and review outfits which have a better reputation than others, but in general games journalism is as close to payola as you can get.
The best thing a gamer can do is ignore pre-embargo reviews and hang on a few days for a more honest consensus to form.
People have killed themselves over virtual stalking / cyber bullying. At the very least WOW should allow opt-out and preferably the service should be opt-in and restricted to over 18s. It's simply irresponsible to lay bare people's online habits without giving them the choice not to disclose information that they may have reason to wish to hide.
I've never understood the draw and allure that WoW provides, and why people get addicted to the point that they drop out of schools.
WOW and most other MMOs are like fruit machines. They are attractive, bright and entertaining worlds that train the user to perform repetitive tasks for the expectation of a random reward (e.g. item drops).
Like gambling some people know when to stop and others don't. Some people play for fun and many more because of force of habit or addiction. More fool them.
I think Google could enable crypto and still deliver ads. After all, you cannot encrypt messages to someone unless you have their key and most email is 1-way - mailing lists, purchase confirmations, ebay bid notifications, newsletters etc. Sites sending you stuff would still do so in the clear which is plenty to determine someone's interests. It is only when you have exchanged keys with somebody else that you can encrypt mail to them. Google could implement message signing and key exchange by default without materially affecting the quality of their ads.
The question still remains as to why they would bother. I suspect they would run a mile from the jurisdictional and legal mess entailed from implementing crypto.
I'm sure China has a very vibrant culture corporate espionage aimed at Western countries. But that does not mean that someemployee of Google who has engaged in such a practice is going to be welcomed with open arms by another company, whether that company is Chinese or not. It's basic common sense. If they did it once, who is to say they won't do it again.
Slashdot Mirror
On my Humax, the SD content is just saved as a program stream on the disk, but the HD content is encrypted. It means I can copy / backup content from the STB but I cant do anything with it on other devices or a PC. I recorded Children of Men from ITV HD a few nights ago and that won't even let me copy the content even in encrypted form, the STB shows a little "no copy" icon next to it in the file manager. There must be several kinds of copy protection flags the boxes are honouring.
It's quite straightforward to define a mechanism to install / remove plugins, interrogate them for the content types they support, and to allow a user to choose their default choice. Firefox already does this for regular plugins, so why do you think it would be hard for video specific ones? In fact, the existing plugin architecture would make a reasonable starting point for implementing video plugins - they could just be NPAPIs that happen to implement a certain interface for Firefox to control their playback functionality, register listeners and so on.
Mozilla doesn't have to implement anything, just make the video plugin architecture extensible. Otherwise sites will just push other browsers which do implement H264, or will use plugins like Silverlight / Flash to render the content anyway in Firefox.
If this were enabled, then in theory then Freeview could do away with copy protection, instead using passive monitoring of various P2P sites to deter file sharing. They could use the information to prosecute, or even send warning / copy disabling / kill codes to offending boxes if they so desired.
As for DRM being broken, this depends how it is implemented and what built-in resilience / healing capabilities it has. If it's some unique key buried in each STB that scrambles the content, then perhaps. If its full broadcast encryption with keys cycling every second combined with occasional over the air changesthen probably not. Even if it were cracked, the vast majority of users wouldn't even care.
Personally I think they should forget about controlling the content and just passively watermark it. They could always send OTA kill codes or prosecute copyright infringers if a unique code was embedded into the image.
Personally I think it will be fairly pointless to stop people doing what they like with the content. Just like Freesat HD, the content will be festooned with adverts, DOGs and sub-optimal encoding (both bitrate constrained and in real time) so it's hardly likely to compete with either DVD or Blu Ray. If they're that paranoid about content leaking out, they should just watermark it via hardware so it's easier to bring prosecutions if they wish.
I never said they were. However Freesat is a joint venture between the BBC & ITV and already implements a form of DRM. Therefore I do not understand why people thought Freeview would be any different, especially when it has more stakeholders.
I have a Freesat HD PVR. HD content is encrypted to the box (you can back it up but it won't play anywhere else). Some content is even flagged and won't even transfer. It must be part of the Freesat conformance requirements. Stuff is broadcast in the clear, so in theory I could use a generic DVB-S2 recorder but then I lose other Freesat features like the EPG.
I agree that you need a few very skilled people to tune code and experiment, people who really know their shit. But I don't see that it should be mutually exclusive with sound design practices. Code needs to be as modular, well defined, readable, maintainable and reusable as possible. It doesn't have to affect speed or turnaround. I would be very wary of any programmer who couldn't explain some design patterns or show some other indication of a programming methodology. Yes they might still turn out a game on time only for you to discover after they left that there are 10,000 lines of monolithic, unreadable crap in the middle of it.
Of course there isn't, but that doesn't mean the issue is impossible to solve. In fact if you look at the way Firefox works right now, it has abstractions of various operating services - messaging, drag & drop, windows, graphics, file locations, plugins etc. Each of these abstractions is done precisely so the bulk of the code is platform netural.
There would be no difference if you were to write an abstract video / audio playback object. The object would appear to the bulk of the code as a common interface or abstract class even though it would be implemented differently on each platform. On Windows, the playback object might work over DirectShow, on OS X it might use Quicktime, on Linux it might use GStreamer or Xine. To the caller however it doesn't make any difference so long as it works as expected.
The second problem, is that you *hope* that the system's codecs will be adequate :
Hardly a biggy either. On operating systems that supply one or more codecs implementations, you test and ensure the codecs / filters meet requirements. For operating systems that don't, you revert to a stub implementation that does nothing, and direct users to a help page. e.g. The browser could state that a codec must support high profile @ 4.1.
In short Firefox can wash their hands of worrying about licencing altogether just by using what the system provides and designing the video apis appropriately such that others can extend / augment the built-in behaviour.
Actually its an excellent option. It's an industry standard, there are a multitude of free and non-free tools, it has well defined profiles & levels, it has countless software & hardware implementations, it is the default encoding format for an increasing number of hardware devices and it offers excellent quality.
The simple reality is that open source codecs are never going to supplant H264 in this generation. Even google couldn't make it happen if they defaulted to an open source codec.
I can understand why Firefox and Linux might not like H264 but it's here and its a reality. So how does one go about enabling open source apps to use a licenced codec? The answer for Firefox at least seems pretty simple, IT DOESN'T NEED TO LICENCE THE CODEC. Just provide a simple video plugin architecture and implementations for operating systems which include H264 (i.e. OS X & Windows) and a stub for those that don't. It wouldn't take more than a few days before a working Linux plugin appeared.
Firefox doesn't have to ship with any H264 support, apart perhaps from a basic understanding of MP4 containers. All it has to do is check the container to see what audio / video codec is used, check with the system to see if it provides those codecs, and then either play the content or direct the user to some help where they can sort themselves out.
Firefox shouldn't care if its free or not. If the OS exposes the H264 codec through its multimedia APIs, Firefox should make use of it.
I understand from the specs it supports several DRMs. But I think it would be colossally stupid for B&N to push their own DRM onto customers. After all, if I own a Nook I don't want my content stuck on just their proprietary reader. I would favour the most portable content even if that means I buy my content elsewhere. And if I don't own a Nook, I'd shop elsewhere altogether.
Apple has enough market penetration that they might just be able to force a kind of "lowest common denominator" as standard... Like it did with MP3s.
The lowest common denominator is probably EPUB but I can well see Apple thinking they have the muscle to push their own DRM over the top. Of course, if the touch device is a cut down OS X, perhaps users can install their own apps but I would not be surprised if its as much of a golden cage as the iPhone / iPod are.
Hopefully it will be the Nooks & Sonys and whatever else which bury the Kindle, or at least see Amazon open up the device. Proprietary as most other devices are in some respect, it seems that they have rallied around EPUB + optional Adobe DRM. If DRM has to exist at least it should be device and vendor neutral.
The fly in the ointment is Apple and what they intend to do. They're not exactly known for embracing standards except as a bait and switch for their own proprietary ones, so they may well support EPUB, but not the DRM everyone else is gravitating around. After all, that would let their users buy their books from anywhere and Apple simply can't allow that.
Mostly horse related icky ones.
Reality says otherwise. Lots of people have bought consoles & PCs beyond the PS2. Indeed, the Wii is selling extremely well and demonstrates people will pay for a new console, one which has (modestly) better graphics than the PS2. Besides, if paying extra was their only consideration, the Wii is looking a distinctly whiffy value proposition since it costs double what a PS2 costs, and some models of 360 are actually cheaper for a more powerful system.
For me that page says - Print List Price: $3.99, Kindle Price: $2.35 includes VAT & international wireless delivery via Amazon Whispernet, You Save: $1.64 (41%). So maybe it's free to US Kindle owners, but not international ones. Poor dumb saps.
As for cyberstalking / cyberbullying, yes it exists and people have killed themselves or suffered other issues as a result. Even Facebook allows users to control what information they expose and who can see it and the same should be true of any social networking service or game.
And as such it's okay for Blizzard to create a feature that allows them to be cyberstalked and harassed?
If you want to see how corrupt gaming journalists are, just wait for the Next Big Game to turn up and witness what happens. The bloggers breathlessly describe how awesome their all expenses paid trip to Next Big Game HQ was, the magazines shout about their Exclusive First Review of Next Big Game, and the gaming sites are plastered with huge tailored background images and side banners for Next Big Game.
Why do journalists go along with it? Because they'll be blackballed if they don't. They won't get the exclusive (p)reviews, they won't get the all expenses paid jollies, or the backstage passes to trade shows, or the marketing junk, or the free games. And their employers won't get the advertising revenue. The likes of Rockstar are notorious for putting savage pressure on review sites to ensure the highest possible score.
Yes there are some reviewers and review outfits which have a better reputation than others, but in general games journalism is as close to payola as you can get.
The best thing a gamer can do is ignore pre-embargo reviews and hang on a few days for a more honest consensus to form.
People have killed themselves over virtual stalking / cyber bullying. At the very least WOW should allow opt-out and preferably the service should be opt-in and restricted to over 18s. It's simply irresponsible to lay bare people's online habits without giving them the choice not to disclose information that they may have reason to wish to hide.
WOW and most other MMOs are like fruit machines. They are attractive, bright and entertaining worlds that train the user to perform repetitive tasks for the expectation of a random reward (e.g. item drops).
Like gambling some people know when to stop and others don't. Some people play for fun and many more because of force of habit or addiction. More fool them.
The question still remains as to why they would bother. I suspect they would run a mile from the jurisdictional and legal mess entailed from implementing crypto.
I'm sure China has a very vibrant culture corporate espionage aimed at Western countries. But that does not mean that someemployee of Google who has engaged in such a practice is going to be welcomed with open arms by another company, whether that company is Chinese or not. It's basic common sense. If they did it once, who is to say they won't do it again.