Talk:High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection

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. 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. FelixT 20:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

---

HDCP bans analog outputs from compliant products, presumably in an attempt to reduce the size of the analog hole in HDCP devices.

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? - Bitt 17:58, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
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
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

HDCP will ultimately promote pirating

With windows vista having HD out, all current computer monitors will not be able to support HDCP. Furthurmore, since the HDCP standard is not backwards compatible, they device you buy today will be useless tomorrow.

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.

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.

Article Quality

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. 204.155.56.3 (talk) 21:20, 20 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." [1] 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. --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. --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 "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. --Interiot 12:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

unsigned comment was added by 71.251.77.125 (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Not DRM?

According to NEC [2],

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

If we could find a backup source on this, it would be worth including in the article. 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.

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? --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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcpexpert (talk • contribs) 23:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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? 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.160.81 (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)