Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel Threatens DMCA Using HDCP Crack

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the no-surprise-here dept.

Encryption 373

mikesd81 writes "Intel is apparently threatening to use the DMCA against anyone using the HDCP crack under the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause. 'There are laws to protect both the intellectual property involved as well as the content that is created and owned by the content providers,' said Tom Waldrop, a spokesman for the company, which developed HDCP. 'Should a circumvention device be created using this information, we and others would avail ourselves, as appropriate, of those remedies.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Bring it on (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33635286)

You know hackers will win anyway.

Re:Bring it on (5, Interesting)

Mattcelt (454751) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635842)

All that has to be done is for a company to make a module with a flashable keyspace. Then the end-user can add the master key to the device themselves, and nobody gets in trouble (unless they start sharing the content).

Barn Doors (5, Insightful)

tsalmark (1265778) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635308)

After the horse has left the barn it's too late to close the door.

Re:Barn Doors (4, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635416)

Unless you can shoot the horse down, hang the horse thief and buy another horse.

The problem comes when you forget about all that happened and put the new horse in a new barn, which is open.

Re:Barn Doors (1)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635440)

Or just assume you can keep using the same horse.

Re:Barn Doors (4, Funny)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635504)

Or just assume you can keep using the same horse.

Speaking of horses, this analogy is starting to seem like beating a dead one. Let it go...

Re:Barn Doors (3, Funny)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635520)

If they are from management they probably figured that out already [gospelweb.net] ...

Re:Barn Doors (3, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635540)

But that horse is dead.

It's passed on. That horse is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. That is a late horse. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you hadn't nailed it to the barn, it would be pushing up the daisies.

Re:Barn Doors (2, Funny)

JamesTRexx (675890) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635646)

So, what are you saying? The horse is no more?

Re:Barn Doors (1)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635922)

It's hopped the twig! It's shuffled off this mortal coil! It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! This is an EX-HORSE !

Re:Barn Doors (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635702)

Was the horse named Polly?

Re:Barn Doors (3, Funny)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635846)

Actually, it's not quite dead yet.

In fact, I think it's feeling better.

Re:Barn Doors (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635634)

Or figure that once the horse is lead to water that it will . . . . wait, did we just get lost in metaphor?

Re:Barn Doors (4, Insightful)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635648)

Is this a car metaphor but with horses which I see before me? The real problem is when the barn owner sells the horses, but also trains them to return to his barn as soon as their new owner is asleep.

Re:Barn Doors (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635852)

It doesn't matter how much you train a horse, it won't come back when it's dead.

And if it did, you'd really, really wouldn't want him to.

Why does this story have a red banner? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33635310)

...and does it really supprise anyone?

That is the modus operandi (4, Insightful)

anUnhandledException (1900222) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635312)

With DMCA hell I could protect something with 2 bit encryption. There is only two keys. 1 and 0. Pretty easy to crack right? It doesn't really matter. No matter how easy to crack doing so opens you up to the DMCA.

If they win expect more "paper tiger" encryption and content protection systems. The teeth isn't the weak flawed crypto. The teeth is in the lawsuit potential.

Re:That is the modus operandi (3, Funny)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635332)

This post is protected by ROT13+ROT13 encryption and the DMCA!

Re:That is the modus operandi (3, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635336)

Which would explain why DRM schemes rarely last any significant amount of time...they want people to hack them, so they have a legally binding way to go after them.

Re:That is the modus operandi (2, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635468)

I thought that was what copyright law was for? This is just about trying to stop people copying their stuff, without understanding how stupid and virtually impossible that is.

Re:That is the modus operandi (1)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635486)

Agreed.

The encryption system is only there to show due diligence in attempting to protect themselves and thus give the authorities a tidy rationalization for putting people in cages for no good reason. Though I doubt the intention of turning people into criminals, (criminalizing humanity?), is an Intel or even a DMCA objective. They're both just tools, I'd say, reacting to the installed mind control systems, ie, the belief that information and knowledge itself are property.

-FL

Re:That is the modus operandi (4, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635488)

they want people to hack them, so they have a legally binding way to go after them.

...and drink their blood!

What! My theory is as sound as yours.

And much better for a movie.

Re:That is the modus operandi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33635446)

should be 4 keys 00, 01, 10, and 11.

Re:That is the modus operandi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33635672)

There are 10 kinds of people :P

Re:That is the modus operandi (4, Interesting)

jabuzz (182671) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635574)

The EU version of the DMCA specifically only provides protection for effective encryption measures. So for example the first time the CSS wast taken to the European Court the ruling was that it was not an effective encryption measure and the case was thrown out. The fact that due to flaws in the scheme an ordinary PC can crack the CSS encryption in less than a second makes it ineffective and thus not eligible for protection.

If HDCP simply required gathering 40 public keys from 40 different bits of hardware to work out the master key then it is highly likely that it would be ruled and ineffective encryption measure and thrown out.

Similarly your two bit scheme would also fall foul of the requirement to be effective.

Re:That is the modus operandi (3, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635622)

Anything that is broken is ineffective, no?

Re:That is the modus operandi (1)

random coward (527722) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635880)

Anything that is broken is ineffective, no?


Anything that is broken. If it released by industrial espionage, or fraud, its not broken then is it? Maybe that is what the law protects. Its also likely that most people will notice the distinction between a technological crack(why should that be illegal?) and an insider theft of the key(hey, he stole the key from them!).

Re:That is the modus operandi (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635902)

The dmca also uses the word effective. But there is little value to this word since it is no longer effective the second it is broken. Since DRM is desinged to create a copy the suer can see the content is decoded in at least one step. So there will be always a vector of attack to a DRM. By its very design DRM can only be partly effective.

But threathening with DCMA is a effective. Since a lawsuit cost a lot of money you need to take a lot of risk for a lawsuit where the outcome is doubtful.

Re:That is the modus operandi (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635804)

If you're willing to risk a lawsuit, you'd probably win, at least if all you were doing was decrypting something you owned "on the fly" (i.e. not saving).

Re:That is the modus operandi (1)

MadJo (674225) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635866)

But, this key is the master key, who is Intel to say who can use that key and who can't?
Will Intel sue Sony for use of this key in their BluRay players under the DMCA? (Yes, please?)

It's the correct use of the key, there is nothing being circumvented.

I'm sure they'll tout the list of "approved" hardware manufacturers. But right now that list is made of companies that are willing/stupid enough to pay the extortion money (If you pay us this amount, we won't sue you for use of this key).

The DMCA can only be used when a copyright protection scam^wscheme is cracked... nothing is cracked here, a valid master key is being used in the way it's supposed to work.

If someone enters my house using a copy of my (master) key, I can't legally call it breaking and entering, because nothing is broken. A lock and key is used the way it is intended.

Oh Yea? (5, Insightful)

fatbuckel (1714764) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635316)

Maybe I won`t use Intel....

Re:Oh Yea? (1)

jridley (9305) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635536)

Well, since Intel owns HDCP and gets a piece of every device using it, be sure not to buy any blu-ray player, game console or TV with an HDMI connector.

Re:Oh Yea? (3, Funny)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635606)

...be sure not to buy any blu-ray player, game console or TV with an HDMI connector.

Sarcasm detectors, on the other hand, are not covered by this.

Re:Oh Yea? (1)

DinDaddy (1168147) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635682)

Or laptop or desktop PC, or monitor, or DVD player . . .

There's No DMCA Outside The US (3, Insightful)

CowboyBob500 (580695) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635324)

So good luck with that Intel...

Re:There's No DMCA Outside The US (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33635350)

... not if ACTA gets signed.

Re:There's No DMCA Outside The US (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635708)

Every nation on Earth isn't likely to sign it (as evidenced by another poster, it looks like it's going to be rejected by Europe as a whole).

If it's legal in ANY country, then the file need only be hosted there. People from all over will download it to use it.

Remember, DVD's are protected by this same exact legislation. Just how much has that hampered DeCSS from being used? Sure there has been some lawsuits and such brought, but ever person who wants to use it has free access to the code and tons of people are using it regardless of any law against doing so.

Intel is trying to unscramble scrambled eggs. Having a law saying that you're allowed to do so doesn't make it anymore possible.

Re:There's No DMCA Outside The US (1)

Mojo66 (1131579) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635684)

Did anyone ever care? Look at ACTA, SWIFT etc, whoever dares to resist will be smacked by the imperialistic hammer. It started with chewing gum and Coca Cola but if the development will continue like this, we'll soon measure in pound per square feet, ban nipples from TV and drink beer from cans wrapped in brown bags. And everyone will carry a gun and we'll play computer games that revolve around shooting at each other. Europe will go down the drain for cowboy culture.

Re:There's No DMCA Outside The US (4, Informative)

bfree (113420) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635716)

There may be no DMCA outside the US as the DMCA is an American law, but the WIPO Copyright Treaty [wikipedia.org] upon which it is based has been enacted in many other countries. For example there is the EU Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC [wikipedia.org]

Re:There's No DMCA Outside The US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33635824)

Fortunately, they're trying to eliminate the DMCA in the US, according to the title they're threatening the DMCA with the new HDCP Crack.

Prediction. (1)

grub (11606) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635346)


- Cable providers will start disabling non-HDCP devices from recording HD shows
- HD shows still appear on the net.
- Intel goes after teh philthy pirates with DMCA
- People lose homes and/or go to jail over distribution of Jersey Shore and other tripe.

Re:Prediction. (2, Insightful)

xtracto (837672) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635412)

My prediction:

Someone will leak the C code for a HDCP decryptor into pastebin (ala DeCSS) and everybody will be happy (except for intel and the copy providers).

Translating Intel press release: "So hmm yea, we really screwed when thinking that 40 keys would be enough for everybody, now that the world have seen how good a snake-oil we sold to the MMPAA guys, we will start litigation with all the world so that the MAFIAA does not sue our assess of the planet..."

Re:Prediction. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33635524)

What is anyone going to do with a software HDCP decryptor?

Re:Prediction. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33635758)

Use it to grab HD content from a Cable/Sat STB.
or
Plug a HDMI input card into your HTPC and use it to play legally owned HD content on a non-HDCP TV.

I'd use it even with HDCP-compatible devices to stop the stupid screen flickering as it handshakes.

Re:Prediction. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33635566)

One might search for 0x6692d179032205 and see what they find. Note the 0x.

Well done Intel (3, Funny)

Apatharch (796324) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635348)

You've found a foolproof way to protect your obsolescent DRM. After all, it worked so well for DVD/CSS.

Re:Well done Intel (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635760)

Hey, that's not fair. CSS had a hard time catching on because of weak support from IE5.

Re:Well done Intel (2, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635832)

CSS wasn't DRM, CSS was about shaking down hardware and software providers for a licensing fee. It didn't do a damned thing about copy protection, just ensured that the pirated media was played using a licensed player. Well, up until somebody cracked it.

I don't see how (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33635360)

We can already by HDCP strippers for around $400, and have done for a few years.

Re:I don't see how (2, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635452)

See how DRM drives up prices for consumers? Strippers without HDCP cost much less than $400.

Re:I don't see how (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33635548)

Eh depends how hot the stripper is. And what she's willing to do.

Re:I don't see how (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635644)

Those Vegas girls must of had HDCP then, cause they were pricey.

Re:I don't see how (1)

DinDaddy (1168147) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635712)

And you don't have to do the HDCP handshake first.

I hate it when they turn purple and green before they start.

Okay (3, Interesting)

ledow (319597) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635364)

What about those people in countries that don't have a DMCA, don't have software patents and have "interoperability" clauses in most things?

Can't I just buy my HDCP stripper from them, instead? Fortunately, that tends to be the same countries that make lots of cheap electronics. Surprising, that, isn't it?

(Not that I care - I don't own a single piece of HD equipment, and don't feel like I'm missing out either)

Re:Okay (2, Insightful)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635738)

The DMCA itself has an interoperability clause. And there's plenty of people with older DVI monitors who would love to simply use them for viewing of legally purchased HD movies. But we all know that Intel will file suits and win anyway.

Re:Okay (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635928)

What about those people in countries that don't have a DMCA

How much does it cost to get your customers from a country that has a DMCA into a country that does not?

Backward Headline (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33635390)

Who wrote the headline? Shouldn't it be "Intel Threatens HDCP Crack Using DMCA"?

Re:Backward Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33635624)

Who wrote the headline? Shouldn't it be "Intel Threatens HDCP Crack Using DMCA"?

No, I think they got it right. Stupid laws that no one enforces get ignored. Stupid laws that get abused, sooner or later, get repealed.

Re:Backward Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33635674)

Who wrote the headline? Shouldn't it be "Intel is Using Crack"?

FTFY /M

So, anybody up to making an open source cracker? (2, Interesting)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635394)

I wonder if it's possible to make a hardware HDCP to DVI converter without having to make a custom ASIC. That way there wouldn't be the need to depend on a lone (probably chinese) supplier.

I'm sure more than a few people would be willing to donate for it to be developed.

Re:So, anybody up to making an open source cracker (1)

grub (11606) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635448)


My thinking is that some Chinese company will release a basic pass-through HDMI-HDMI adapter with a USB port. The USB could be used to flash an ASIC with HDCP stripping code.

Think of how Free to Air receivers worked out of the box for, well, free satellite. You need to download code to get the cracked stuff.

Re:So, anybody up to making an open source cracker (3, Informative)

Dragoniz3r (992309) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635538)

Just use an FPGA... problem solved.

Re:So, anybody up to making an open source cracker (4, Interesting)

DeathToBill (601486) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635586)

The OpenGraphics project are building a graphics card with a big-ass FPGA on it. Seems like the right tool in the right place...

Re:So, anybody up to making an open source cracker (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635694)

a reasonably fast embedded processor on a COTS dev. board.

LOC vs DMCA (3, Interesting)

spikenerd (642677) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635406)

So if the Library of Congress says jail-breaking is okay, and the DMCA says it's not, which one takes precedence in U.S. law?

(You do not need to point out that this is Slashdot, not a legal firm. I do not expect all responses to be from lawyers. I will not take any responses to be authoritative. Heretofore therefore nonesuch nevertheless notwithstanding and yadda yadda.)

Re:LOC vs DMCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33635514)

The Library of Congress has rulemaking authority in the DMCA to promulgate rules which declare exemptions for activities that would otherwise fall under the DMCA. So long story short, the library of congress.

Re:LOC vs DMCA (4, Informative)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635534)

So if the Library of Congress says jail-breaking is okay, and the DMCA says it's not, which one takes precedence in U.S. law?

The Librarian of Congress has been empowered to create DMCA exemptions, so the Library of Congress would win.

Re:LOC vs DMCA (1)

Alan Shutko (5101) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635550)

The Library of Congress is given authority by the DMCA to determine exceptions. So it takes precedence.

Re:LOC vs DMCA (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635560)

The Library of Congress. That's their role as part of the DMCA. Every 4 years they review and make a ruling on exemptions to the DMCA.

You could already unlock your phone.

And, in Apple's case the encryption on the phone wasn't to protect them from copyright abuse. Apple was using it to control access to their product. That's not the purpose of the DMCA.

Re:LOC vs DMCA (1)

ComputerInsultant (722520) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635564)

The Library of Congress review that resulting in approval of jail-breaking is a part of the DMCA. So there is no question of precedence. The DMCA said that the Library of Congress was allowed to make this decision. The LOC did.

Re:LOC vs DMCA (1)

Teancum (67324) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635686)

It isn't the Library of Congress that determines what copyright laws are.... that is the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. While the Library of Congress may have a few people who know a thing or two about copyright and that the Library of Congress is responsible for copyright registrations (where you send the checks and materials for that registration), it isn't the final word for what is legal or not.

The precedence is the DMCA... as awful as that law is. Or perhaps the 1st Amendment is the real final precedent, as a means to challenge some of the provisions of the DMCA together with suggesting that the DMCA violates the copyright clause as an unconstitutional grant of authority to the federal government that isn't permitted under the constitution. Good luck with that one as Eldred v. Ashcroft [wikipedia.org] , the last major test of the copyright clause in the constitution, pretty much stated that Congress can interpret that clause to be whatever it is that they want it to mean.

Re:LOC vs DMCA (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635772)

The DMCA takes precedence being an actual law, but part of that actual law says that the Library of Congress has the power to grant exemptions.

So by the very text of the DMCA, if the LOC says it's ok, then it's ok.

Re:LOC vs DMCA (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635854)

From a non-lawyer point of view you can still apply logic and reason to find out this answer. Just ask yourself the question: "which law will benefit the party with the deeper pockets?", in this case the big corporations. Statistically the laws that benefit them have precedence over laws that benefit the consumer with a fairly large margin, so you can assume that this time won't be any different. This is no legal advise, just a layman view of how these things commonly play out...

DMCA Lutero (2, Informative)

Tei (520358) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635410)

I remenber there was once a ban in europe to read the bible, other by sanctioned sources. So a dude ( Lutero ) made a version in a language (german) that everyone can read.

I don't remenber how the DMCA back then worked. Did the pope stopped him?

Re:DMCA Lutero (4, Insightful)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635532)

Well, no. But the legal proceedings against him (or more rightly, customers using his work-around) were costly: at least 3 million people dead.

Let's hope Intel shows a little more restraint than that.

Re:DMCA Lutero (3, Insightful)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635662)

if you are talking about luther, he started a major offshoot of the christian faith, sending wars across europe destroying many catholic churches and killing thousands (even very recently in north ireland)

sounds like a plan to me, burning record stores, MPAA/RIAA executives crusified or burned at the stake.. where do i sign up?

Can I build an HDCP device myself? (1)

ComputerInsultant (722520) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635414)

So what would it take to actually build an HDCP re-recording device? Does it require custom silicon from a fab, or can it be built using a FPGA and a bread board?

Shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33635418)

Effectively, what they mean is that, on their watch, no one will be mass-pproducing or marketing any kind of useful device which would give owners of legitimate copys of works the power to use their data they way they would like.

So how long before HDCP is replaced? (2, Interesting)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635436)

Does this mean the industry will rally around a replacement for HDCP? Will we all need to buy new TV's again? New blu-ray players? New video cards and laptops? Or do they think they can keep this genie bottled-up forever? This here could be exactly why DRM should be illegal and why the DMCA should be repealed. Imagine that every 5-10 years -- every protocol, every connector, every player -- has to be replaced because the industry won't back it unless it has a new unbreakable DRM system. This would be bad for everyone except the select few at the top of the industry who are collaborating to profit off of re-selling new devices to everyone. It half-way makes me suspect that they collude to release these systems, then crack them just as the get adoption to force everyone to buy new systems.

But this is a worst-case scenario. Time will tell...

Re:So how long before HDCP is replaced? (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635450)

This would be bad for everyone except the select few at the top of the industry who are collaborating to profit off of re-selling new devices to everyone.

Well, duh... who do you think bought the DMCA?

Re:So how long before HDCP is replaced? (4, Funny)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635704)

The village people?

Re:So how long before HDCP is replaced? (1)

kiwix (1810960) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635494)

If they try to force everybody to use buy a new TV, a new player, and a set of new discs, most people will just download a pirated copy...

Re:So how long before HDCP is replaced? (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635596)

Once there ceases to be any tangible benefit for the consumer in an upgrade (no, I don't need 2160p, or 32-channel surround sound, or 4-D goggles LOL) then people will more strongly resist the upgrade cycle. Ideally, the only people buying the new equipment would be hackers who will redistribute everything so the old machines can play it.

Re:So how long before HDCP is replaced? (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635610)

Ya I doubt getting the millions of people who have already bought a HDTV/BluRay Player will just go back to the store and buy another one. If the crack goes mainstream there will just be another format all together and Sony will / does look like dumb asses after their latest iteration of 8 track / beta / BluRay. Funny they finally win a proprietary format and it proves to screw them, the irony is too sweet.

Re:So how long before HDCP is replaced? (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635808)

It's not blu-ray that was cracked: it was HDCP. So the new players would still play blu-ray disks, they just would use a different content protection on the way to the television. It won't make Sony look dumb since Intel made HDCP.

Re:So how long before HDCP is replaced? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33635744)

Well hopefully since the HDCP is such a large install base, it will really open everyone's eye to this BS if they try to pull that game and make everyone replace their perfectly working hardware.

Im guessing they have a few options to do this without pissing off a bunch of people.

1) Create a new DRM scheme and require it to be put in new hardware now, but not make its use mandatory for a few years, so hopefully the install base is pretty large by the time its mandatory. Likely this new scheme will be cracked by then too, unless no details of the scheme are released to the gen public before the switch is flipped. that alone would probably piss off people too

2) wait till 4k displays and a new media for the format hits the consumer market and make a new DRM scheme for that. that way everyone gets it when they upgrade to 4k, if/when that ever happens.

3) just give up on fucking DRM already, the pirates have no problem getting around it, there have been rips of BD movies on torrent sites for years already. There no need for a DRM capable device to play back the ripped content, so they've already lost. To make matters worse, some of the newer TVs out there will directly play these rips from a plugged in usb hard drive or DLNA, what a way for the TV manufacturers to give hollywood the finger. hell alot of these BD rips appear online before the movies even come out, so the industry probably has some insiders leaking out unencumbered bits straight to the pirates. hollywood needs to clean their own house of the moles if they want to stick a finger in this dam.

Re:So how long before HDCP is replaced? (1)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635780)

Come on, this is the industries version of the stimulus package. You buy more and more overseas workers get jobs. Come on think of their kids. Oh and yes the kids of the executives that need that extra tuition for the Ivy League school they want to go to. The extra tuition being needed to open that back door.

BD not cracked (3, Interesting)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635480)

If I understand this correctly, the BD encryption has NOT been cracked. THIS hack only opens the communication over the HDMI cable between the BD player and your TV. Cracking the encryption on the BD disks themselves is another matter that has not yet been fully cracked. However, this exploit should allow reading the digital data flowing out of the BD player to be captured and saved to disk. This might require some hardware hacking, I don't think there are any PCI video cards that have HDMI INPUTS available.

Even if China or someother NON-DMCA country builds such devices they will (eventually) be destroyed by customs and whoever smuggles them into this country will be treated the same as a drug dealer.

Re:BD not cracked (1)

knewter (62953) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635692)

We don't need to import the hardware. Just the bits resulting from the hardware's availability. Fin.

Re:BD not cracked (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635800)

whoever smuggles them into this country will be treated the same as a drug dealer.

They'll be hired by the CIA?

dmca this (1)

Jeek Elemental (976426) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635512)

Im currently availing myself, since appropriate, of my middle digit facility.

All in all (1)

BlackBloq (702158) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635572)

This protection did great as far as not being broken by a 14 year old. Next time will be stronger but will they lock the plans up better?

Ironic or Stupid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33635652)

Intel: We have confirmed the exploit.

internet: ok, cool.

Intel: The only practical way to use this exploit it to make a device that decodes in hardware.

internet: yeah, probably. but why are you-

Intel: Specifically, you may not make these schematics (hands out schematics) using cheap readily available components. Don't even think about it. We have more copies if anyone needs them.

internet: ...

Grammar? (2, Informative)

supersloshy (1273442) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635736)

I don't mean to be a grammar nazi here, but "Intel Threatens DMCA Using HDCP Crack"? Really? The DMCA must feel so threatened because of Intel threatening it with the HDCP crack... More like "Intel Threatens HDCP Crack With DMCA".

No Need To Violate DMCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33635746)

Companies can legally under Intel's licenses make reprogrammable HDMI/DVI device that do anything. The caveat is that they not support HDCP. A company can make these sell them legally and then let the users modify the firmware or software drivers to add HDCP. Another more interesting issue is the DMCA is a US law, so unless the country involved has a like law the company can sell the legal product in the US and offer the upgrade on its web site in a country where Intel can do nothing about it.

effect /dev/null (1)

agoliveira (188870) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635788)

I don't need to point that:
a) DHCP is been defeated using hardware removers for a long time already
b) Despite how some USA companies believe, DMCA is not valid worldwide and in many places rip a DVD or BluRay is perfectly legal as long it's for your personal use at least.

Sue or arrest your customer! (1)

OFnow (1098151) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635840)

Intel: Arresting/Suing your customer is a tried and true solution to everything.

I wonder if DMCA really applies to HDCP anyway (3, Interesting)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 4 years ago | (#33635904)

Unlike DRM which is present within media upon its receipt, HDCP does not exist on a BluRay or cable/satellite TV transmission. HDCP is something that is added by the user's machine. DMCA says:

a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

And since we're talking about a process/treatment that occurs after access, it's not something that is needed to gain access.

Just an idea. (Probably won't work.)

Another tack here, is: how easily can you tell your equipment to use HDCP even when it's not playing DRMed media? Can you have your computer use a HDCP connection to its monitor all the time even when you're surfing Slashdot, typing your great novel, etc. Is this something that is happening all the time, anyway? (I just don't know.) If so -- if non-DRM-colluders can enable HDCP -- then 99.999999% of the time that someone uses a HDCP cracker, they would not be doing to circumvent a technological measure that controls access to a work without the authority of the copyright holder, since the user is the copyright holder. Likewise, the intended market and primary use of such a device, would not be to remove HDCP without the authority of the copyright holder. It would be legal to use and traffick.


  (This is why there can never be a real standard for DRM, because you have to prevent non-colluding parties from being allowed to apply that DRM, lest they authorize access.) Cracking HDCP and distributing cracks, is only prohibited if HDCP is normally only used when a copyright holder demands it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?