Jump to content

Talk:High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
7,748,697 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Computing}}.
 
(186 intermediate revisions by 48 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
Great effort but this article confuses the functionality of AACS with HDCP. AACS encrypts the content and attempts to manage the rights available for the content. HDCP creates a secure, encrypted channel between authenticated devices.
|minthreadsleft = 2
For example, HDCP does not ban analog outputs. AACS has a digital only token, image constraint token and analog sunset clause in the licensing agreement. It is the functionality in AACS that downgrades and ultimately blocks analog output. This really creates confusion for readers. [[User:FelixT|FelixT]] 20:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
<HR>
|algo = old(45d)
|archive = Talk:High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection/Archive %(year)d
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Computing |importance=low |network=y |network-importance=Low |software=y |software-importance=Low |hardware=y |hardware-importance=Low |security=y |security-importance=Mid}}
}}
{{archive box|{{ Yearly archive list
| prefix = /Archive_
}}
}}


== New Section "HDCP ROADMAP EXPLANATION" is needed ==
<blockquote><i>HDCP bans analog outputs from compliant products, presumably in an attempt to reduce the size of the analog hole in HDCP devices.</i></blockquote>
Does this refer to a device that might try to accept an HDCP signal and convert it to analog, or does this mean that a device that produces an HDCP signal cannot also provide analog output? This needs to be clearer. HD-DirecTiVos, at least, have both component and HDMI outputs. Is this in violation of HDCP (but within the FCC ruling), or is this okay by the HDCP Spec? - [[User:Wfaulk|Bitt]] 17:58, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
<br>
The sample license agreement states in section 3.4 that no analog outputs are allowed except for those that limit their quality as defined in section 3.3 of the agreement. Obviously a screen itself is by some definitaions an analog output, I believe the restriction is on output jacks however - not screens. So the device should be designed to make it difficult and lossy to extract analog copies of digital content. For example an HDCP monitor would not have a component video output so screens could be chained together. - April 8, 2005
<br>
Due to a court ruling that the FCC surpased their madate in requiring the broadcast flag, the flag will not be mandatory on July 1st 2005. I believe this means the requirement to implement HDCP is no longer part of US law, but I not sure enough of this to include it in the article. - June 19, 2005


Having looked at this article I am still mystified by HDCP. We need a Roadmap Explanation, stating what happens at what point done by what circuitry or computer software.
== HDCP will ultimately promote pirating ==


:A Transmitter of RF Signal at TV Station. Does this insert HDCP?
With windows vista having HD out, all current computer monitors will not
Does a cable service insert HDCP into its RF transmitter?
be able to support HDCP. Furthurmore, since the HDCP standard is not
:B RF Signal through Air: Is HDCP protocol a part of the RF signal?
backwards compatible, they device you buy today will be useless tomorrow.
::Or does the RF signal through the cable system contain HDCP protocol as part of the cable RF signal?
:C TV Tuner / Cable Box: Does the TV Tuner have a circuit or software that generates the HDCP query?
:D HDMI cable: Does the HDMI cable have inserted into it a microchip or a circuit to generate & receive HDCP query? (This seems unlikely since HDMI cables are very cheap.)
:E HDMI Splitter: Does an HDMI splitter inserted into the HDMI pathway have in itself an HDCP answer device to complete a handshake with the HDCP query?
:F HDMI SINK (TV set, monitor, DVR) Does the sink have an HDCP query responder to complete or refuse a handshake with the HDCP query source?


My experiment: I hooked an HDMI cable to the HDMI output of a Philips DVR. The HDMI cable went to a 1x2 splitter. Then I hooked 2 monitors to the dual outputs of the splitter, both monitors HDCP compliant -- result was a picture on both monitors. Then I unhooked one monitor & instead ran the 2nd HDMI splitter output to a converter box that converts HDMI to Component Video. Then I hooked that converter's component output to the input on a Component input monitor which was HDCP compliant. That monitor also gave a component video input picture. Then I inserted a Component splitter into the component line, running the component signal thru the splitter to the same monitor - and I got a picture. Then I added a component cable to the 2nd output on the component splitter & ran it to the component input on a DVR; but though I was still seeing pictures on the HDMI monitor & on the Component monitor, the Component input DVR did not get the signal & record it. The component video DVR is a rare model made before there was HDMI, capable of handling no greater resolution than 720P.
For example if you buy a new 3000 DLP HD tv, you will probably not
be able to buy a blue-ray HD-DVD next year because the HDCP version will
be newer than your TV. And I garantee DVD manufacturers are not
going to start making multiple HDCP version of their products.


I would like that this article have enough precise (but not overly technical) information to explain this. It seems that the HDCP could detect through the HDMI to Component converter through the Component cable to the component monitor, that the component monitor was HDCP compliant, though running an analog signal. (This monitor has both HDMI & Component inputs, but I was using Component input.) But at the same time seems the HDCP could also detect that I had attached to the second output of the Component splitter a component line going to an HDCP non-compliant Component input DVR & deny a signal to it while feeding a signal to the 1st output of the component splitter. ([[User:PeacePeace|PeacePeace]] ([[User talk:PeacePeace|talk]]) 02:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC))
When they told me that I could not watch any of my original
bought DVD's thru the analogue component. Why bother ever buying
another movie again, I'll just rent them for 3 Bucks and make prfect 1:1
copies with my DL DVD-RW.


== Does Not This Article Require Drastic Revision in View of old citations? ==
== Article Quality ==


2018 observation: It would appear that a lot of this article is supported by ancient citations; thus it needs updating. It seems probable that this article will require carefully dated statements (never present tense or "currently") since HDCP seems to be a matter of cyber war between over-protectors of intellectual property and hackers. Things that were true a few months ago may be false now. ([[User:PeacePeace|PeacePeace]] ([[User talk:PeacePeace|talk]]) 02:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC))
I'm fairly uninformed about this topic, which is why I was browsing this article, but this article is horrible. It does not present a neutral point of view, which is obvious by the bold text in the intro. It also uses frequent weasel words and makes unsubstantiated claims, again in the intro. This article needs serious clean-up and an admin should ban shodaddy from editing; it's clear he does not represent and informed, non-biased opinion of the topic. I would try to clean the article up, but I don't know enough. I only know that by reading the article it's obvious this is not a reputable article. I'm going to add a "clean-up" tag, although, I'm almost certain shodaddy will remove it before clean-up is done. [[Special:Contributions/204.155.56.3|204.155.56.3]] ([[User talk:204.155.56.3|talk]]) 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
:I second that motion. "Furthering the gap between the rich and poor?" That belongs in an article about marxism, not one about digital technology. [[User:Cheezmeister|Cheezmeister]] ([[User talk:Cheezmeister|talk]]) 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
:: Agreed. I just stripped out all the political bollocks, Undoubtedly some anti-copyright zealot will be along shortly to add it back in again, but there you go - one can but try. [[User:Ianbetteridge|Ianbetteridge]] ([[User talk:Ianbetteridge|talk]]) 15:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

== Support ==

From FiringSquad: "there is no shipping retail add-in board with HDCP decoding keys. Simply put, none of the AGP or PCI-E graphics cards that you can buy today support HDCP." [http://firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_nvidia_hdcp_support/] [[User:Shawnc|Shawnc]] 20:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

>> I doubt they ever will. The Crypto-chips that they'd have to include on the cards would be their un-doing. One kid in Norway manages to crack that and determine how to make legit HDCP keys... and the industry will suffer WORSE then it did with the whole CCS contraversy. For this to work (according to the specs on it) its going to need access to the outside world every few days/weeks for updated codes. Either via a web connection or through software on newly released BlueRay and HD-DVD discs. Thing is, they can also disable keys, which has the possibility to make old discs useless (in effect, destroying your purchase).


My biggest wonder is, when we get around to camcorders that can record on BluRay or HD-DVD... what kind of key will they use? Couldn't you just mimic the key that the camcorder uses ONTO your PC for burning? In essence, make all your burned BlueRay/HDDVD discs look (according to the decrypter) like they're home movies... just a thought. --[[User:Ghostalker|Ghostalker]]

: Assuming the situation with HD-DVD/Bluray mirrors that with the current technology, you won't be able to protect content you create yourself (that privilege will be reserved for the movie studios). If the content isn't protected, it doesn't need to be encrypted when being transfered from device to device. --[[User:JamesHenstridge|James]] 03:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

== Addition? ==

I think it should be added that "The vulnerability shown by Crosby et al requires knowing 40 linearly independent private keys." Thus (in a realistic case), more than 40 keys (HDCP devices) need to be compromised to disable the key revocation scheme, cf. http://www.angelfire.com/realm/keithirwin/HDCPAttacks.html .

== Use of term "Digital Rights Management" violates neutrality policy ==

DRM is an industry marketing slogan and for that reason alone does not belong on Wikipedia. It's as if an article on BMWs described them as ultimate driving machines without making clear that this is an ad slogan, not a neutral description of BMW's products.

Actually DRM is much worse--it's a polemical term which is being used to justify monopolistic practices and violations of freedom of speech and privacy.

A more accurate description of "DRM" would be "mechanisms that allows hardware and software companies to control your computer, invade your privacy and restrict how you can use your own property." Okay, that too would express a point of view. How about "copy restriction"?
: What's worse, Wikipedia uses the term [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org+%22Intellectual+property%22&btnG=Search "intellectual property"] on more than 40,000 pages! Clearly that's not a neutral phrase, as it implies IP should be owned forever. Seriously though, these are terms that are part of everyone's lexicon at this point, flaming liberals along with everyone else. "Copy restriction" is a little more neutral, but I don't think that DRM is something that any encyclopedia (professionally produced or written by users) would seriously consider conciously avoiding. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/71.251.77.125|71.251.77.125]] ([[User talk:71.251.77.125|talk]]) 00:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

== Not DRM? ==
According to NEC [http://www.necdisplay.com/SupportCenter/Monitors/TechLibrary/Windows_Vista_White_Paper_0107.pdf],

<blockquote>HDCP is not designed to prevent copying or recording of digital content but to protect the integrity of content as it is being transmitted.</blockquote>

If we could find a backup source on this, it would be worth including in the article. [[User:171.71.37.103|171.71.37.103]] 22:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


== Started cleaning up ==

Took a look at the DRM issue, content or stream protection is more accurate. Also did a lot of searching in the license agreement and corrected entry to reflect language present in that document.

Moved cryptanalysis down for readability.

I plan to tackle the spec and use scenarios next, upon first look they also have some factual errors.

[[User:Dcpexpert|Dcpexpert]] ([[User talk:Dcpexpert|talk]]) 23:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

== Dead link ==
One of the references (Niels Ferguson bit towards the end) says it's a dead link, but it actually redirects to an unsavory site now. What's the best way of removing the link without removing the information about when and where the site was accessed for use in the article? --[[User:W0lfie|W0lfie]] ([[User talk:W0lfie|talk]]) 17:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

== More cleaning ==

I moved some items around for browsability. There were a lot of major chunks of text, trying to add some structure. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Dcpexpert|Dcpexpert]] ([[User talk:Dcpexpert|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dcpexpert|contribs]]) 23:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Destructive edits by Shodaddy ==

I have been working to clean up this entry and get it up to Wiki standards. Moving Shodaddy's criticisms to appropriate sections and cleaning up the language and attempting to cite his claims. Each time I move things around and clean it up he simply pastes the same thing in again once I have already moved it to where it belongs and polished it up some. What is the next course of action? [[User:Dcpexpert|Dcpexpert]] ([[User talk:Dcpexpert|talk]]) 16:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Try reporting abuse with the wikipedia editors? This article is one of the worst I have ever seen on wikipedia. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/128.104.160.81|128.104.160.81]] ([[User talk:128.104.160.81|talk]]) 22:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I've asked Shodaddy to cease the edits via their Talk page. I'm hoping they will discuss the issue, either here or there, but if they refuse to do so I'd suggest we treat the comments as vandalism: they're so clearly outside NPOV, and the campaign of reverts is so clear, that unless there's discussion I can only assume the edits are destructive. [[User:Ianbetteridge|Ianbetteridge]] ([[User talk:Ianbetteridge|talk]]) 15:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:49, 3 February 2024

New Section "HDCP ROADMAP EXPLANATION" is needed

[edit]

Having looked at this article I am still mystified by HDCP. We need a Roadmap Explanation, stating what happens at what point done by what circuitry or computer software.

A Transmitter of RF Signal at TV Station. Does this insert HDCP?

Does a cable service insert HDCP into its RF transmitter?

B RF Signal through Air: Is HDCP protocol a part of the RF signal?
Or does the RF signal through the cable system contain HDCP protocol as part of the cable RF signal?
C TV Tuner / Cable Box: Does the TV Tuner have a circuit or software that generates the HDCP query?
D HDMI cable: Does the HDMI cable have inserted into it a microchip or a circuit to generate & receive HDCP query? (This seems unlikely since HDMI cables are very cheap.)
E HDMI Splitter: Does an HDMI splitter inserted into the HDMI pathway have in itself an HDCP answer device to complete a handshake with the HDCP query?
F HDMI SINK (TV set, monitor, DVR) Does the sink have an HDCP query responder to complete or refuse a handshake with the HDCP query source?

My experiment: I hooked an HDMI cable to the HDMI output of a Philips DVR. The HDMI cable went to a 1x2 splitter. Then I hooked 2 monitors to the dual outputs of the splitter, both monitors HDCP compliant -- result was a picture on both monitors. Then I unhooked one monitor & instead ran the 2nd HDMI splitter output to a converter box that converts HDMI to Component Video. Then I hooked that converter's component output to the input on a Component input monitor which was HDCP compliant. That monitor also gave a component video input picture. Then I inserted a Component splitter into the component line, running the component signal thru the splitter to the same monitor - and I got a picture. Then I added a component cable to the 2nd output on the component splitter & ran it to the component input on a DVR; but though I was still seeing pictures on the HDMI monitor & on the Component monitor, the Component input DVR did not get the signal & record it. The component video DVR is a rare model made before there was HDMI, capable of handling no greater resolution than 720P.

I would like that this article have enough precise (but not overly technical) information to explain this. It seems that the HDCP could detect through the HDMI to Component converter through the Component cable to the component monitor, that the component monitor was HDCP compliant, though running an analog signal. (This monitor has both HDMI & Component inputs, but I was using Component input.) But at the same time seems the HDCP could also detect that I had attached to the second output of the Component splitter a component line going to an HDCP non-compliant Component input DVR & deny a signal to it while feeding a signal to the 1st output of the component splitter. (PeacePeace (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Does Not This Article Require Drastic Revision in View of old citations?

[edit]

2018 observation: It would appear that a lot of this article is supported by ancient citations; thus it needs updating. It seems probable that this article will require carefully dated statements (never present tense or "currently") since HDCP seems to be a matter of cyber war between over-protectors of intellectual property and hackers. Things that were true a few months ago may be false now. (PeacePeace (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:High-bandwidth_Digital_Content_Protection&oldid=1202708388"