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!

Digital Display Encryption Details Leaked

michael posted more than 13 years ago | from the licensed-monitor-device dept.

Encryption 212

Phill Hugo writes: "Cryptome has details of the High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection System which will be implemented as content control between computers and monitor screens. I wonder if continued leaking of the details of the many copy-protections systems will make them unworkable. Who's willing to follow suit in the other camps?" Your monitor will soon be a "licensed monitor device".

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

Digital TV Encryption (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#243400)

The newer digital TV's that I am familiar with,IE:Sony, Mits, Philips,Sharp, the I2C bus links ALL the IC's in the set, if ALL the IC's arent responding ,the set doesn't run. So, I'm sure it wont take a brain surgeon to tie into the bus and dump the correct data in to defeat the encryption, at just about any IC, Tuner,IF, video/chroma jungle ic,Horiz. reg./shutdown. PICK ONE!

Re:Looooong page (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#243401)

Yes, Unix users hate documented formats where the reference implementation is under an Open Source licence.

Re:When I first heard... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#243402)

The problem the content mfgs have now is that these new displays use a purely digital signal and they hate things that can be used to create "perfect" digital copies.
Then they shouldn't have made such a big push for CDs while claiming that they were unbreakable and that the price would come down once their production costs did (all while engaging in illegal price fixing). They made their bed, and I'll make damn sure they lie in it.

But so friggin what? In NYC, the Indian method of piracy is to have a roomful of VCRs dubbing. The Chinese method is to use stolen, borrowed, or legitimately held DVD masters to print "pirate" copies at the same factories in Asia as the legit ones. So this puts the crimp on the Indian method, and does nothing to stop the Chinese one.

This kind of "enforcement" shares much in common with other forms; to make criminals out of ordinary people while victimizing them and producing not one cold turd to stop the actual criminals.

Smells like Anti Trust to me. (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#243403)

if a company has a monopoly on (A) and uses that monopoly to gain a monopolistic control on some other item (B) - is that not illegal?

The movie industry acts in concert - they act as a single company. They use their monopoly (the movies) to gain control over another industry (B) the players. Is that not illegal?

Likewise, if MSFT - demands that all audio drivers are signed by MSFT otherwise the content is messed up. If I want to sell my sound card to windows users, have they not gained a monopolistic control over sound card manufactures?

Same thing happens here - but with computers, dvds and hdtv.

So how does the little guy - like me - who wants to make his own stuff and start his own company do so? These companies have raised the bar so high so as to preclude the particpation of a new player in the market. And have thus completed their monopolistic take over of the market.

Obviously - something is going on.

Bits must be decrypted somewhere. (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#243404)

My fav trick to get around "listen but don't save" audio formats like .ram files is a fake sound driver that actually writes to disk. There's no way the software can trap this out without having a "list of all approved sound drivers" which would piss off many PC owners with junk sound cards/drivers made by fly by night companies.

So now we will need a dummy video driver that "T"'s video to the screen and to disk. Faster computers will make this readily doable.

Re:Declaration of Consumer Copying Rights (DCCR) (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#243405)

I like it... but I seriously doubt that it would ever go through.

Just a couple more things might be necessary: one to satisfy the copyright holders, and be explicit about it, and the other to save money on court costs if and when the situation arises.

(6) These rights do not and can not be implied to extend to permit any unauthorized broadcast or redistribution, except as specifically outlined above.

(7) Where these rights and existing Copyright Law come into conflict, Copyright Law shall be enforced only so long as it does not diminish the consumer's rights to copy as listed above, or any other "fair use" rights explicitly described in Copyright Law

ebay (4)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#243406)

I'm going to stock up on normal monitors now, and sell them on ebay in 5 years.

I'll make a fortune!

Declaration of Consumer Copying Rights (DCCR) (5)

root (1428) | more than 13 years ago | (#243407)

To SAVE MONEY on many duplicate court trials and to REDUCE COURT WORKLOAD, Congress should IMMEDIATELY create and pass a Declaration of Consumer Copying Rights or DCCR (pronounced "decker")... A consumer Bill of Rights that list what people are EXPLICITLY ALLOWED to do with copyrighted material.

(1) The Right of The People to make unlimited copies of copyrighted materials, which they own or hold a valid license to, for their own personal use shall not be infringed.
(2) The Right of The People to transfer ownership or licenses of copyrighted materials , and at their own discresion, (with all copies made therof, if any) to another party shall not be infringed.
(3) The Right of The People to make a copy, in any format, of a copyrighted work aired on a public or subscribed broadcast medium for time shift viewing purposes shall not be infringed.
(4) The Right of The People to possess the hardware and software and other tools necessary to carry out the above shall not be infringed. (5) These rights, as a whole, shall immediately, retroactively, and for all time preempt the portions of all contracts and licenses contrary with the above.

Seem fair? Changes? Additions?

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

Parsec (1702) | more than 13 years ago | (#243408)

Once the technology exists in a production model who's going to stop the MPAA from releasing only formats that work with the new monitors?

What's going to be worth watching once an audience is found that will bend over and take these restrictions? My guess is it will split culture between brainless consumers of Britney Spears type crap and intelligent people who like real music.

Re:All it takes (1)

Parsec (1702) | more than 13 years ago | (#243409)

Is for ONE person to make a device to tap into the signal going to the picture tube, and this protection scheme will be useless.

Doesn't our governmet already have that. Just search Slashdot for "Tempest"

Re:The undemocratic suprastate (1)

Parsec (1702) | more than 13 years ago | (#243410)

In other words, without the use of force, there can be no monopolies, and socialist governments are in the business of monopolies.

The idea is to benefit the people by ensuring that profit doesn't interfere with service. In theory a great idea, in practice difficult. I'm not saying don't try, though.

I just thought that should be clarified.

Re:HDCP = ( Property = Theft ) (1)

Parsec (1702) | more than 13 years ago | (#243411)

effectively have a Communist idea at their root; if we are allowed to own any copyrighted material we will steal: Property equals theft.

Imbecile you have it backwards. The communist idea of property as theft is that we all share equally. When I program I share with you, when you write (though showing your ignorance) you share with me. If, however, I program and have the government pass a law to make you pay for my work when we're all supposed to be sharing (playing nice), that is theft, especially if you miss out on the opportunity to get a similar law passed.

Did I just feed a troll?

Time to BAN the US mail and other delivery service (3)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 13 years ago | (#243412)

Time to BAN the US mail and other delivery services. It appears that they can be used to get around the DMCA...

Re:Am I missing something? (2)

MushMouth (5650) | more than 13 years ago | (#243415)

Bruce Perens warned [google.com] of this when napster first arrived on the scene, everyone seemed to ignore him. (The above link is a google cache, because I couldn't get to technocrat.net for some reason)

This has *got* to be a joke! (2)

FFFish (7567) | more than 13 years ago | (#243417)

It just must be. Because if this trend continues, they're gonna have to classify computers as munitions, and keep 'em out of the hands of everyday citizens.

When computers become outlawed, only outlaws will have computers...

--

Re:No, all it takes (2)

Syberghost (10557) | more than 13 years ago | (#243418)

is for nobody to buy this shite. Then it will go away.

If every computer monitor manufacturer implements this, you will have two choices:

1) Buy this shite.

2) Don't buy anything.

If you choose the later, this shite won't go away; you will have gone away. I doubt the entire world is going to give up on computing, so your time would be better spent finding another way to fight this. Perhaps convincing a couple of manufacturers to continue to offer monitors that don't implement it, for instance.

-

Re:All it takes (5)

justin.warren (14556) | more than 13 years ago | (#243424)

Actually, no. Read the document, in particular section 5 - Renewability. I initially thought something similar to the leaked keys which enabled DeCSS to work its magic might occur here, but they've apparently learnt their lesson and put in something to counter it.

To summarise for those who haven't read the thing: I initially thought, "Ok, cool, so we just reverse engineer the secret keys and KSV out of the hardware that we have access to and implement in software." We don't have to know what the hell's going on, just get access to the keys. Any cryptosystem is broken if you can get a hold of the secret key(s).

Aha! But they know this is possible, so they've built in a method to get the system to check for known leaked secret keysets and KSV's. It's broadcast in the media, so your copy of The Matrix will play fine, but Antitrust knows your keys are compromised and so won't play. This is basically the same as revoking your PGP/GPG key if it becomes compromised. Actually, from my quick read of this spec, they appear to have designed a variant of public key cryptography. I'll leave the cryptanalysis of the algorithm to someone actually good at it.

Key management is the real weakness here, though. Sure, if a keyset is compromised it can be tagged as such on newer media, but old media which _doesn't_ know the keyset is compromised should play fine... unless the values are stored in NVRAM or similar on the video card or in the monitor, which would be what I'd design in if I were trying to take all your rights away.

That's a management nightmare, though. Just look at the proliferation of DeCSS. Now imagine a similar program for decoding the video stream and an online database of compromised keys. Sure, the HDCP consortium can update their compromised keylists, but there's a time delay in getting those updates out to the hardware (using the video media as the vector). Cue a game of cat and mouse with the hackers putting out keysets and the HDCP struggling to keep their updates moving.

The big problem that they don't appear to realise is that they are sending the secret keys out into hostile territory! The only way a cryptosystem can remain secure is if you can maintain security of the secret key(s). If the user were choosing the keys for the hardware themselves to protect a datastream over a local video broadcast medium, then that would be fine, because the person choosing the private keys is the person who can maintain the security of those keys.

An analogy: creating a PGP key pair and placing your public key on the 'net for people to use. Now encode your private key onto a CD, which you give to someone. They leak your key, so you issue a recovation and generate a new keypair, but every time you generate a new keypair, you publish your private key (no matter how it has been obscured). As soon as someone other than you has access to your private key, it should be assumed to be compromised.

All in all, a better attempt than CSS, but still fundamentally broken.

56-bit??? (1)

Compuser (14899) | more than 13 years ago | (#243425)

It blows my mind that people would consider
using 56-bit keys anywhere esp. in devices
with several years lifetime. They can have
en/dec-ryption in hardware so speed wouldn't
be an issue so why not have say 4096 bit
encryption? What am I missing?

Re:56-bit??? (1)

Compuser (14899) | more than 13 years ago | (#243426)

Wait, but they try to protect monitor, i.e.
monitor-computer connection is assumed
insecure. Besides you can't embed a key in
either computer or monitor because both
devices are in user control so keys can
then be extracted via some hardware readout
device. You must dinamically generate key
pairs without communicating with the other
device, i.e. symmetric schemes are not suited
for the task of securing the monitor.
Furthermore, my question indeed had to do with
making brute-forcing harder by using absurd
length keys.
Again, what am I missing?

Losing Control (3)

PRickard (16563) | more than 13 years ago | (#243432)

This is similar to what Microsoft is planning for Windows XP's sound infrastucture. XP will send all sound signals to the sound card with some kind of encrypted static in them. The card, using a Microsoft-approved driver, will then decode the signal and remove the static for playback [see The Register [theregister.co.uk] ].
Its all intended to prevent us from somehow getting between the OS and hardware to 'steal' audio (and video, with the monitor system) after the software decodes it. Microsoft is jonesing to help the RIAA kill MP3 and replace it with WMA, and the best way to do that is sucking up to the RIAA and its member companies by taking control away from the end user/listener. Yet another reason to Boycott Microsoft [msboycott.com] !

Key generation system (2)

Taral (16888) | more than 13 years ago | (#243433)

I can't help but wonder how those KSVs and secret key sets are generated... Anyone know of another system like this?

Taral

WARN_(accel)("msg null; should hang here to be win compatible\n");

Think ahead - who will build these? (4)

Daffy Duck (17350) | more than 13 years ago | (#243434)

It seems clear that this whole hullabaloo boils down to stopping people from copying movies. This is in the movie studios' interest. But with the exception of Sony, are there any monitor manufacturers who are in bed with movie producers? If not, why would a manufacturer want to go to all the trouble and added expense?

I think the only answer would be customer demand. So how can the movie studios create this demand? By releasing movies that will ONLY be playable on conforming equipment.

But this is going to be a huge hurdle, much bigger than the introduction of DVDs. With a DVD, at most you have to buy a DVD-ROM drive or a DVD player that now costs under $200. But this new protected videostream is going to require you to buy a new protected DVD player AND a new protected TV. (Or for PC folks, a new video card and a new monitor.) Now you're paying at least $500, probably closer to $1000. That's pretty severe! These movies are going to have to be awfully good to make it worthwhile for anyone who isn't rolling in money.

The eventual disappearance of NTSC broadcasts is going to be tough enough to sell even when "all" most folks have to do is buy a set-top box. But tell everyone that they must replace every TV they own, and I don't think they'll go for it.

Therefore, I think the only way for this to go through in a big way is for the movie studios to get together and buy all the major monitor manufacturers. Good luck, fellas.

Re:Copy Protection (1)

Phill Hugo (22705) | more than 13 years ago | (#243436)

In such cases of an unbroken encryption scheme, the leaked details could easily be vendor keys and suchlike.

The measure for protecting against that is indicated in the article linked off the peice. It mentions using a satellite network to revoke comprimised keys but the details of that network would then be candidates for leakage.

Re:56-bit??? (1)

Phill Hugo (22705) | more than 13 years ago | (#243437)

> What am I missing?

The difference between symetric and asymetric key encryption schemes.

A 56 bit cypher would be the same on both sides and good schemes mean they are usually only breakable by brute force (checking each patter of the 56 bits as the cypher until success).

The public/private key schemes use longer keys because not every pattern of bit in its bit range can occur for the scheme to work. It normally takes 1024 bit in these schemes for the same level of security to be acheived.

Of course, the asymetric schemes have the bonus that you can hand out the public key in untrusted environments such as the net.

Decrypting System (2)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 13 years ago | (#243438)

Just make a decrypting system: A camera pointed at a view-inhibited monitor.

[I suppose this post violates the DCMA because it describes a system to break a protection method.]

Re:Eureka! (2)

marxmarv (30295) | more than 13 years ago | (#243441)

Oracle used it. I imagine it's probably standard in information theory, but I never went to college, so what do I know?

-jhp

Potential Consumer Revolt (1)

rarose (36450) | more than 13 years ago | (#243450)

This system could result in huge lawsuits against monitor/TV manufacturers. Just picture the GlamCo sees 2 million HDTVs/Monitors when Joe Hacker hacks one. The content producers now deactivate all of the monitors/TVs sharing GlamCo's key.

Can you imagine their support people saying "No, your TV is not broken. We deactivated it because a 13-year old in Norway reflashed an EPROM. I'm sorry... but our new models still work. Would you like to purchase one now for $899?"

I smell lawsuits ready and waiting to happen...

HDCP = ( Property = Theft ) (2)

MadAhab (40080) | more than 13 years ago | (#243452)

All this greed excess - the fear that someone, somewhere, may be enjoying anything without having spent money - leads to an absurd result. Schemes like HDCP, like CSS, etc, effectively have a Communist idea at their root; if we are allowed to own any copyrighted material we will steal: Property equals theft.

So remember, Hillary Rosen is a stinkin' pinko. Hmm... Rosen... Well, there you have it.

Oh, and don't buy any of these encrypted monitor things, or I'll have to call you a total sucker. SUCKER, I SAY! FELL OFF A TURNIP TRUCK, YOU DID!

Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.

Re:What's the application? (2)

MadAhab (40080) | more than 13 years ago | (#243453)

Mod thatup!
One of them is going to be a set of viruses that intentionally triggers mechanisms like these so even legitimate data can't be displayed/copied/played back properly.

It crosses over into sabotage - not quite terrorism. More like gluing locks to public parks than taking a nail file to a Firestone tire. It is destructive and violent, but it also might do more to convince John Q Jackass, Senator Dipshit, and the juries of class action lawsuits against the RIAA and the MPAA than all the copies of DeCSS put together.

Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.

Re:This is good. (2)

MadAhab (40080) | more than 13 years ago | (#243454)

Didn't read cryptonomicon, did you? Check this [counterpane.com] .

Five letter sequences are the key. Perhaps someone less lazy than I will try a password. I'd start with "This is good." Then try "Slashdot", "Anonymous Coward", and variations. That person is not only less lazy but has more time than me.

Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.

Re:U.S. Citizens (2)

Malcontent (40834) | more than 13 years ago | (#243455)

Forget Ted Turner Tie a goddamned noose around the neck fo that bastard Rupert Murdock. In my revolution his head would be the first to roll.

Re:No, all it takes (1)

Dwonis (52652) | more than 13 years ago | (#243464)

Except it will become mandated by a law passed by the corrupt government of U.S.A.
------
I'm a C++ guru ... What's STL?

U.S. Citizens (3)

Dwonis (52652) | more than 13 years ago | (#243466)

You guys in the U.S.A. have an obligation to the rest of the world to fix your government. Soon, something like this will be mandated by your government, and through "globalization", will pollute every other country who isn't an enemy of the U.S. Your country will be responsible for the downfall of the entire planet, and we'll have either an Orwellian culture (*shiver*) or a third world war of corporations versus the public masses (*equal*shiver*).

I'm talking to YOU. You know who you are. You're the guy with the ability (money) to run for political office, and could probably win, but you don't want to get into politics. You're leaving the governing of your nation to the more corrupt or power-hungry or lawyer-type or self-centred bastards who don't give a damn about society as a whole.

Run for office, for Christ's sake, because the way it's going, it will only get worse! Get off your ass and make a small sacrafice for the rest of us. You can do it! We're only asking for two terms.
------
I'm a C++ guru ... What's STL?

Re:Think ahead - who will build these? (4)

Dwonis (52652) | more than 13 years ago | (#243467)

First of all, there are really only three picture-tube manufacturers for monitors, and Sony's one of them. I can see them making contracts to only sell tubes to companies who implement this.

Second, the current corruption of the United States government will allow a law to be passed, mandating this.

This shit better not leak into Canada, or they're going to see skilled labour (namely myself and anyone with the means who gives a damn) leaving.
------
I'm a C++ guru ... What's STL?

Re:Copy Protection (2)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 13 years ago | (#243470)

I'm sure graphics artists, video producers, etc. are going to love having MacroVision or some other image-degrading thing reducing the quality of theur images. Or maybe there will be "professional" equipment that costs more, a la minidisc. I hate the MPAA and RIAA.

- - - - -

Re:The undemocratic suprastate (2)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 13 years ago | (#243471)

Every now and again some Slashdotter posts something along the lines of a major corporation being "socialist" - meaning that it has a monopoly and, ergo, is part of the state. I don't necessarily support that type of logic.

Maybe they say it from the point of view that, Socialist government relies on the use of force to maintain "fair" distributions of resources, and companies who achieve monopolies also use force, via the government and its laws, to maintain their "fair" distribution of resources.

In other words, without the use of force, there can be no monopolies, and socialist governments are in the business of monopolies.

The U.S. Government used to grant limited monpolies for short durations of time to strike a balance between the "common good" -- wide dissemination of ideas and information -- and profit motive. The idea was to have more information created, which would then be widely disseminated. In exchange for the use of government force to establish and maintain a monopoly in a specific area (i.e., getting a patent, trademark or copyright), you agree to give up all rights to that thing after a set, limited amount of time; and also show other people how to so it. If you don't like that deal, you try to "trade secret" -- which affords no government protection to you (beyond regular theft/espionage/etc laws).

I'm pretty sure that if we could dig up and re-animate the founding fathers and other revolutionaries that founded this country, they would be throwing DVD players into Boston Harbor in no time. And advocating the widespread production of hemp. And backing out of entangling treaties. And giving the smackdown to corporations as a legal entiry. Etc. I.e., improving the place.

- - - - -

Re:U.S. Citizens (2)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 13 years ago | (#243472)

You guys in the U.S.A. have an obligation to the rest of the world to fix your government.

Boy, do we. And to fix our media companies *cough Ted Turner* while we're at it.

I'll be running for President when I'm old enough. As a Libertarian. Restoring the balance of power in favor of the people, rather than the government, or corporations. In fact, I might jsut do away with corporations, and put commercial business back on the footing it was once on in this country. Either that, or extend to individuals the same rights that corporations have. ;)



- - - - -

Re:Just one problem (2)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 13 years ago | (#243473)

Corporations are essentially immortal; they can wait

Here's a crazy idea that just might work: limit the life span of a corporation to the current average, or maximum recorded, human lifespan. The the corporation is dissolved and its assets sold, with the usual inheritance taxes taken out. The owners of the company can set up another company to buy the old company's assets, so the business will go on. But other companies and people can also bid for it in open auction. Turnover, baby!

- - - - -

Re:Some companies are already doing this. (1)

FnordLord (54411) | more than 13 years ago | (#243476)

That's so it can send power too, without having another cord. Kind of like imacs only being one piece, and the mouse plugging into the keyboard.

Perens? (2)

jovlinger (55075) | more than 13 years ago | (#243477)

You mean Schneier, surely.

Re:Am I missing something? (2)

Pandaemonium (70120) | more than 13 years ago | (#243481)

Anyone else see something analogous to the trust's and monopolies of the late 1800's and early 1900's going on here?

From what I have been reading, and what I have seen, all these crytographic and control mechanisms are the same thing as trusts - they both combine a mechanism for control and force the masses to submit to it without choice! No matter where you look, alas, your monitor must hook up to a VIDLOCK(tm) compatible video card. And, not just that, but all monitors are VIDLOCK(tm). And, even better, all video cards are VIDLOCK(tm) embracing.

What happened to consumer choice? How can the people choose NOT TO PURCHASE THIS STANDARD, when there are no other choices in the market? When the market is supposed to be based on choice, and people vote with their dollar, how can you have a fair election with only one choice on the ballot?

This is a dictatorship through capitalism!

Perhaps we should look at lobbying our representatives? An addendum to the Sherman Anti-Trust act?

All it takes (5)

Jailbrekr (73837) | more than 13 years ago | (#243483)

Is for ONE person to make a device to tap into the signal going to the picture tube, and this protection scheme will be useless.

It is getting to the point where I am going to ACTIVELY pirate copyrighted media, just to show my absolute disgust for the MPAA and RIAA. This blatent manipulation of the computer and electronics industry by these monolithic giants must stop.

Erosion of Fair Use (2)

stevens (84346) | more than 13 years ago | (#243485)

This story bears a common thread with several recent stories, f'rinstance:

A judge recently asked an attourney defending 2600 against the DMCA what previously-held "fair use" that new law makes impossible. He wanted to know what daily activity was being made impossible. She didn't have a great answer for him.

But I think that's not the right question. DVD's haven't been around very long to have established a very large set of uses: the problem is that the DMCA helps the DVD CCA to market a product that is functionally useless for convenient "unauthorized fair use" of it's contents. So it's hard for normal (but unauthorized) other uses to develop.

If a bookseller marketed a product that made fair use really difficult, judges would instantly see the effect of the law. Say the book's ink disappears if the fingers of the person opening it aren't detected to be the owner's fingers. It's easy to see the effect. But for a judge who has no use for manipulating multimedia content, the only "use" for a DVD is to hit "play" and watch.

I don't know the semantics of this video "Digital Content Protection" spec well at all, but it seems to follow the pattern. We'll argue that circumventing it for the "fair use" of the content going over the wire is fine; but the judge won't see why, since we never had good access to that data before, so why should we be entitled to it now?

It's disappointing. Maybe someone should start a company that sells a book like the one I've described who wouldn't mind seeing this go to court.

See I told you so (1)

Rogain (91755) | more than 13 years ago | (#243491)

Linux and Free Software is the Revolution. Support freedom of software and hardware and save what is left of our individual liberties.

Re:No, all it takes (1)

Tiroth (95112) | more than 13 years ago | (#243493)

Well, ATRAC is just compression. The actual copy protection is all part of the transmission standard (SPDIF). Of course, its easy to toggle the copy protect bits off if you have the right hardware. :)

Am I missing something? (4)

_Mustang (96904) | more than 13 years ago | (#243494)

While I'm not totally against the concept of "rights" in the form of "pay the person whose content you use, I would like to know exactly where in this mess of crap are MY rights protected? I think shit like this is way out of line when implemented as hardware requirements . Who the hell made the Movie and Song industries the people who get to choose how I use things for which I've already paid for?? Hell, never mind about the content that I've paid for, who the hell made them the arbitrers of how HARDWARE that I purchased - PURCHASED!- functions? It's ridiculous to the extreme and would make for some seriously deadly comparisons to other industries. You'll notice that if Ford doesn't like how I drive my car, they can shove it up their ass. The same of course goes for the people who made my microwave, and desk lamp; all of them can think whatever they like but having paid for these goods, I decide how I use them.. And can anyone tell me where the concept of free and open markets making decisions on what (products) live or die, went...?? Bastards one and all..

But you forget... (3)

Sir_Winston (107378) | more than 13 years ago | (#243496)

>There are lots of non-Sony, non-Sharp, non-Toshiba, non-Philips makers

But almost all of them use Sony or Mitsubishi parts. The Trinitron and Diamondtron tubes are standard in most good CRTs, and while I don't know much about LCDs, I'm sure there's probably a similar situation where 2 or 3 manufacturers make some of the important components or license some necessary IP used in almost all. So if all the major companies back content protection, they can say "include content protection or we won't sell you [needed widget]." Then you have the market effectively in total control by the content barons. Another possibility is to create a content encryption and playback system which will not work at all with standard, non-protected ports.

Naturally, there will be hardware hacks to remove protection from monitors, or to make non-protected monitors work with protected content. But they will be illegal circumvention devices under the DMCA, so impossible for consumers to legally obtain unless they live in a truly free country. Even so, they will require too much technical expertise for the former, or be too esoteric for the latter, to ever reach the average consumer.

What we have is a few large conglomerates setting themselves up as IP barons, just as we had the robber barons of the 19th century or the nobility of the feudal systems in earlier centuries. IP barons will have rights and opportunities and modes of existence far removed from what the average citizen ever sees. And that's not the way it's supposed to work. Unregulated capitalism is as evil and crushing and divisive as any system ever conjured in history. I'm all for capitalism, but with responsible consumer protection.

Copy Protection (3)

Adam Jenkins (121697) | more than 13 years ago | (#243498)

Leaking details won't make these systems unworkable if they are any good. In fact it may make the copy protection schemes better, as manufacturers realise security through obscurity doesn't work. And there's always the fact that you can't encrypt the final output, it has to be visible to us humans :) I mean granted video protection mucks this up a bit, but it's still watchable.
--
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Circuit City tested this (1)

Therlin (126989) | more than 13 years ago | (#243501)

I remember that Circuit City developed and demoed this technology (or a similar one) way back then when they were promoting their DIVX format. It is scary and sad to see that this evil idea is still being worked on by other companies.

When I first heard... (1)

Digitalia (127982) | more than 13 years ago | (#243503)

When I first heard about this, I was thinking to myself, "Hey, someone's working to make sure Wim van Eck's legacy can be staved off cheaply and easily."

Mind you, I'm an overly paranoid person who doesn't necessarily know as much as he should, so you can somewhat understand where this addled thought came from. I'm sure you can also understand, then, my disgust when discovering its true purpose. However, my original impression raised a few questions in my mind. Is van Eck Phreaking still a viable thing? Could it be used in some form to bypass this?

note entirely true (2)

Karrade (137360) | more than 13 years ago | (#243507)

Its not enough that a device be created, but it needs to be distributed to people to use them. After all DeCSS has been created, but no one can easily develop a DVD player that uses it since the MPAA (with the help of the courts) would try to shut them down.

This is especially the case with hardware. Its not as easy to build a device from schematics as it is to directly copy and use some sort of circumvention software. As with the "old" DirectTV hack, you'd have to go through the effort to buy hacked cards from somewhere (like ebay).

Re:Looooong page (1)

Lozzer (141543) | more than 13 years ago | (#243509)

A zip file, on a pro unix site, are you out of your tiny little karma-whoring mind?

Re:Am I missing something? YES (1)

Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (142215) | more than 13 years ago | (#243510)

Ford may not care about how you drive your car, but your friendly neighborhood speedtrap certainly does.

You are comparing the police, who (in theory at least) function as the representatives of the people, and are (in theory at least) accountable to elected officials, and hence, to us, "we the people", to a corporation which is privately owned and can do basically whatever the hell it wants to?

Are you serious?

Nor are they too keen on you feeding rat poison to other people

Who in their right mind would want to? That is not only illegal, unethical, and immoral (in almost all cases). That is a FAR cry from DMCA "violations".

As for single engine private planes, I wouldn't fly in one if I could! I have been in a car that stalled. Had it been a single engine private plane instead I'd be dead. That is just bad engineering. If I were to say backup web servers were silly, I'd get flamed. And a web server failure with no backup doesn't (usually) kill someone.

I agree that lawsuits against gun manufacturers are stupid. Just like lawsuits against DeCSS.

Nope. (2)

gunner800 (142959) | more than 13 years ago | (#243511)

Hardly useless. The hordes of consumers won't use that device because they don't know it exists, or they can't find a way to get it, or they're afraid of the legions of lawyers.


My mom is not a Karma whore!

Another thing is... (1)

Perianwyr Stormcrow (157913) | more than 13 years ago | (#243515)

...as the quality of such devices increases (along with a concomitant increase in the quality of recording devices) it is likely that the loss in such a "low-tech" copy scheme will be quite low, certainly within viewable levels. Unless, of course, they decide to fit us all with cyber-eyes...

--Perianwyr Stormcrow

How ironic (4)

TheFrood (163934) | more than 13 years ago | (#243516)

Key management is the real weakness here, though. Sure, if a keyset is compromised it can be tagged as such on newer media, but old media which _doesn't_ know the keyset is compromised should play fine...

So what would happen in that case is that the hot new releases would be unpirateable for awhile (and thus people who wanted to see them would have to pay for them), but after a period of time the keys would be compromised and anyone could copy, excerpt, or modify the original work.

If you squint a little -- okay, if you squint a lot -- it almost looks like something the U.S. founding fathers would approve of. The creators of new works would have a limited period of exclusive distribution (providing an incentive to create works), after which the works would fall into the public domain.

TheFrood

Just one problem (1)

John Jorsett (171560) | more than 13 years ago | (#243517)

This has an obvious flaw: the light emission from the monitor to user is unencrypted. I look forward to a future enhancement which embeds a content protection chip in each user's brain.

Re:The Key Point (1)

kz45 (175825) | more than 13 years ago | (#243521)

Do you actually believe this?

here is a similarity: when enough large companies start using GNU software in their commercial, it makes it ok from then on for ANY company to do so. intellectual rights are intellectual rights. Whether it be protecting companies from using and abusing gnu source code, or people copying movies/music/other copyrighted material. If you believe in protecting in one, you cannot just trample on others' rights without being a hypocrite.

it seems there are too many people in the GNU community that are like this.

Re:Just one problem (2)

JCCyC (179760) | more than 13 years ago | (#243523)

This has an obvious flaw: the light emission from the monitor to user is unencrypted. I look forward to a future enhancement which embeds a content protection chip in each user's brain.

You can be ABSOLUTELY sure they will try that eventually, as soon as the needed technology becomes available, and not 0.0000000000001 seconds later. Okay, it's sci-fi level so it's unlikely to happen in the next 100 years. No problem, when it can happen it WILL happen. Corporations are essentially immortal; they can wait.

Missing the point (5)

rocur (183707) | more than 13 years ago | (#243528)

Everyone here seems to be missing what this actually is. This is not a plan to sell fancy encrypted monitors to plug into your computer to allow you to play streaming video over the web. This is an integral part of the data chain to be required for next generation video. That means HD-DVDs, HD-Cable, HD-Satellite, HD-VCR/PVR, etc. In order to get a license to manufacture a player, the player will be required to only output analog video (probably Macrovision encoded) or to use this encrypted digital bit stream (most likely over firewire). Which means that you the consumer get a choice of watching hi-def programming down-converted to play on your existing TV set or you get to buy a new "licensed" monitor. And oh, by the way, those of you who have already bought HDTV monitors, you are SOL, thats the cost of being an early adopter.

This doesn't require an act of Congress to mandate or any strong arm tactics against the manufacturers. It is an integral part of the evolution of video. And for you audiophiles, both DVD-Audio and superCD (or whatever Sony calls it) are already encrypted on the media.

And before you think I see this as either a good or neutral development, I don't. This is another step in the entertainment industry's plan to strip we consumers of all of our rights and force all media into a "pay-per-view" scheme.

Changing system (2)

bl968 (190792) | more than 13 years ago | (#243529)

As it currently stands at this moment, the public no longer has any rights relating to content they purchase or own. The content companies have all the legal rights and legal protection. When it comes to content, they all but own the judicial system. They definitely own the Legislative branch of the American government.

As citizens and consumers, we must strive to change to the system. Write letters to your congressmen and congresswomen and send them via postal mail. Do not send the letters via email as many congressmen ignore email all together. You can also call and encourage your friends to call as well.

Next consumers have to stop buying the rights abusive products from the content companies. It would take less than a month for a boycott by millions of people in order to force the content companies into changing their ways. Sadly, we can talk as much as we like about the problem here on Slashdot however, the odds of any meaningful changes resulting from it are just about zero.


--
When I'm good I'm very good, when I'm bad I'm better, But when I'm evil you better run :P

Anyway this can be good (2)

Fruny (194844) | more than 13 years ago | (#243530)

If it can get more people reading and less people watching TV. ( Or spending time online, me included )

Re:No, all it takes (2)

sulli (195030) | more than 13 years ago | (#243531)

Right, but you can buy a Macrovision-free DVD [dvdcity.com] over at DVD City. Don't want it? Buy without!

Re:No, all it takes (3)

sulli (195030) | more than 13 years ago | (#243532)

Right, and the smart makers won't implement it. There are lots of non-Sony, non-Sharp, non-Toshiba, non-Philips makers out there who would love to get a bigger share of the market and would gladly use this as a way to do so. Think of the MP3 Discmans the smaller electronics makers ship now, or VCD ... someone will ship hardware that's user-friendly, or I'll eat my hat.

No, all it takes (4)

sulli (195030) | more than 13 years ago | (#243533)

is for nobody to buy this shite. Then it will go away.

How many of you use SDMI or ATRAC vs. MP3? Show of hands? Case closed.

Re:Think ahead - who will build these? (1)

zoftie (195518) | more than 13 years ago | (#243534)

Isn't it is called conspiracy for global monopoly
on media control? If the little chance it will
might take, to become real, I hope government
will bust this deal, because then companies will
be excersizing something of governmental powers
of orwellinan touch.

Consumrtism and pop-culture made that made
corporations, should be banished by every
individual concerned with the future of this
earth, and his own future.

Hmmm (1)

ZeroConcept (196261) | more than 13 years ago | (#243535)

I know it sucks...but...bandwith is getting cheaper and cheaper, can anyone think of an acceptable solution to prevent the internet becoming the biggest free blockbuster on the planet? What is wrong and right with that?

Re:Eureka! (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 13 years ago | (#243538)

|| is a concatenate operator in SQL...and that for a long time.

Re:No, all it takes (1)

bv3nut (199935) | more than 13 years ago | (#243541)

someone will ship hardware that's user-friendly

Not when congress passes a law funded by the mpaa that requires all monitors sold in the U.S. to include this garbage.

How much are we going to tollerate? (5)

hhg (200613) | more than 13 years ago | (#243543)

We see theese kind of things popping up everywhere. "Pirate-protection" on cds, computergames, compressed music, vcrs, dvds, harddisks and now, as if it wasn't enough, The game of profit-maximizing makes buissiness out of encrypting signals in the 1m wire between my computer and my monitor. I have to ask myself one question - WHY? Why are someone allowed to control my pc? Why are someone allowed to limit the use of services I have legaly purchased? If I purchase something, I like to think of it as my own. I own my car, my tv, my bike and my books. I can do with it what I find delightful or funny - whenever I feel like it. Unfortunately some fuckhead came up with the idea of "licence-agreements" - and worst of all, most governments in the world allows this kind of development-brake to be switched on. If I would like to know how this pc operates (it runs winME), I'm not allowed to. I'm tried to be prevented from having my DVDs copied, someone tries to prevent me from copying my purchased music, someone is trying to have my purchased books time-limited, someone is trying to stop me from taping TV-shows, and now - as the top of the "kransekake", as we say in Norway, someone wants to keep me from listening in on the signal MY OWN pc tries to send to MY OWN terminal. I liked to think of my own as my own. Just as Linus pronounces linux as linux. But I'm not allowed to. This has got to stop. If this common policy continues, we are not allowed to change the lightbulbs in our own homes, we won't be allowed to open the hood on our cars, we won't be allowed to install our own car-stereo, and we won't be allowed to not watch commercials. Someone has got to say NO at some point, or civilisation is going down - driven to the ground by its own hunger for profit. I'm not a communist - far from it, but I do want to point out a communist fact, manely that the people are in charge. Or, for you american citizens, you were in charge. Then you found out that you had to let the money take control, and now it's the buissinessmen in the USA that litterally controls your lives. And when I thought you'd seen what you have become, you elect - of all the idiots in your country, Mr. George W. Bush as your president. I've gotta laugh. But everywhere else in the world, I would like you to think about what kind of control you want over your own life. Think abiut it the next time you are to elect your representate to the natonal-government. Of course we don't want to steel things - but then again, that's why we BUY it. What we are really doing nowadays is renting stuff - but noone calls it that. I wonder why...

Re:Think ahead - who will build these? (3)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 13 years ago | (#243546)

First of all, there are really only three picture-tube manufacturers for monitors, and Sony's one of them. I can see them making contracts to only sell tubes to companies who implement this.

what makes you think that they're going to be using picture tubes? Things like LED/LCD and/or DLP systems will eventually replace the tube.

The real danger to this system presents is potential for the elimination of non-licensed content.

Imagine having to purchase a license to write and sign software, like operating systems, because the hardware wont permit the execution or use otherwise.

Yes indeedy! (2)

Vuarnet (207505) | more than 13 years ago | (#243547)

Like it or not, whenever something like this happens (DVD encription, DMCA, stuff like that) in the USA, it always leaks down to the rest of the world.

So far, when transnational companies *cough*Sony*cough* begin implementing this kind of changes, almost all of the time they begin in the US. So what can non-US citizens do to defend themselves? I mean, american culture influences most of the world already. And whatever is decided there, we're stuck with, here in the developing countries.

So come on, fix it up! We're standing behind you, all the way! Hip hip hooray for DeCSS! Down ith the RIAA, the DMCA and all of the other FLAs.


Oh, and send us more p0rn, while you're at it.
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I

Will the real Bruce Perens please stand up? (2)

tswinzig (210999) | more than 13 years ago | (#243548)

Actually, from my quick read of this spec, they appear to have designed a variant of public key cryptography. I'll leave the cryptanalysis of the algorithm to someone actually good at it.

You know who you are, Bruce...

Re:Perens? (2)

tswinzig (210999) | more than 13 years ago | (#243549)

Surely they're interchangeable?

Re:U.S. Citizens (4)

tswinzig (210999) | more than 13 years ago | (#243550)

I'm talking to YOU. You know who you are. You're the guy with the ability (money) to run for political office, and could probably win, but you don't want to get into politics. You're leaving the governing of your nation to the more corrupt or power-hungry or lawyer-type or self-centred bastards who don't give a damn about society as a whole.

Run for office, for Christ's sake, because the way it's going, it will only get worse! Get off your ass and make a small sacrafice for the rest of us. You can do it! We're only asking for two terms.


Damn, at first I thought you were familiar with the US government. Then I got near the end, where you actually think a regular person could make public office, like the found fathers intended, and not just schmuck millionaires.

Boy are you stupid!

Not before time. (3)

Dan Hayes (212400) | more than 13 years ago | (#243551)

Its about time the balance of power shifted away from the consumer of media, and back toward the producer. Better piracy-prevention technology will enable content producers to invest in new movies music and other content without fear of it becoming instantly copied by legions of criminal slashdot readers who only obey the law if there is a danger that it might be enforced.


Secondly, this technology could also be used in our schools and libraries to ensure that objectionable content, such as sexually explicit images, or anti-religious propaganda can be blocked from our childrens tv screens. It is difficult to imagine any law-abiding sane adult arguing against this technology.


Lets hope it becomes commonplace, soon.

Re:Not before time. (2)

BlowCat (216402) | more than 13 years ago | (#243552)

It is difficult to imagine any law-abiding sane adult arguing against this technology.
Sorry for a trivial answer, but somebody must answer you. I am a law-abiding sane (hopefully) adult. I am using free software on my computer. I believe that this kind of protection cannot be implemented without employing proprietary closed-source software. This would limit my ability to use free software on the new hardware. That's why I'm against this technology.

Re:Hmmm - Different business models (3)

KarmaBlackballed (222917) | more than 13 years ago | (#243558)

internet becoming the biggest free blockbuster {a popular video rental chain in the US} on the planet

What if there is nothing wrong with that? What if that is really a good thing? Of course, it would smash today's content business models.

Let's think about this ... If the horse and buggy manufacturers had the governmental reach the Movie and Music conglomerates have today, we would not be allowed to drive a car because that would trash their horse and buggy business model. (A good lawyer would have patented the multi-passenger enclosed coach and attaching an engine would be a breach of license.)

Of course if Radio had realized what they could achieve by hiring lawyers instead of engineers, there would have been no television because it would have (and did) significantly reduce the importance of radio as an entertainment resource. (A good team of lawyers would have manipulated the system so that radio technology was allowed for licensed receivers -- which of course would only have delivered sound, not video.)

No one speaks for the new business models that would rise up to profit from the new content realities since they don't yet exist. And of course, the way things seem to be headed, our big brother will not let things change so we can discover what they are. (And yes, someone will always profit. The only issue is that they may not be the same ones that do today. ===> Change is bad when you are already on top.)

Bang Bang Oww (Me pounding fist on table and then rubbing it because I hit the table too hard.)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~

Re:Eureka! (1)

Johnny Starrock (227040) | more than 13 years ago | (#243560)

'||' is in fact a concatenation operator in SQL.

Marvy (2)

Johnny Starrock (227040) | more than 13 years ago | (#243561)

This would really suck if certain monitors would only work with certain computers from companies that have licensed their technology. Do I need to start building my own monitors as well as computers now? =)

Actually, I doubt that's the intent of this document. However, it always pays to be on guard, eh?

While you're at it stock up on video cards (2)

eclectro (227083) | more than 13 years ago | (#243562)

Because the only video cards that will be available are the ones with encrypted output to feed the digital monitors, which won't work with your old style analog monitors.

You and I can tell why this technology is bad, but Joe Scmoe going to an Office Depot isn't going to care as long as what ever system he buys works reasonably well (copy protection or not).

When you think about it, there isn't a PC subsystem that isn't under attack by an encryption standard. Firewire, USB, hard drives, video, and sound all need to be placed under lock and key.

Bruce Schneier of Counterpane puts it well - "As long as there is a general purpose computer, their is going to be a way around encryption methods." So it's the manufacturers' job (they're all pretty much as a cartel in this respect) to "subtract" functionality from a PC so you and I can't do things we shouldn't be. Things are looking bleak [theregister.co.uk] More here [theregister.co.uk] .

I suppose that their will be ways for some of us to build general purpose computers from a box of ICs like the good ol' days. Who knows, maybe we can have a little niche market selling boards to fellow slashdotters. The only problem is that with the way the courts are thinking, that may be considered a circumvention device.....

Re:But you forget... (2)

eclectro (227083) | more than 13 years ago | (#243563)

I would say "unregulated corporations" [adbusters.org] that has more rights than an ordinary citizen is what's wrong. Of course the DMCA is some whore of a law that the corporations can sink their teeth into, that my own Senator Hatch is responsible for.

The Key Point (1)

spongebob (227503) | more than 13 years ago | (#243565)

We need to remember what a small percentage of Americans actually own a computer. Without hard numbers, the last study I saw showed there were about 50 million Americans online. This compared to the 250 million citizens in the country. This is why we have been trying to get the sub $500 PC for years. Once the masses get online, it will be completely free. There will not be any bueracracy that will be able to control the piracy or theft of any digital medium. It will be time sensitivity that will prove a piece of information to be valuable, not copyright.

Fair Use of Digital Content (1)

GeneralEmergency (240687) | more than 13 years ago | (#243567)

Good examples of fair use of digital content are:

I want to create a Terminator clip screensaver for my sole use on my personal computer.

I want to run the (hopefully) last 'NSYNC album thru a voice-center filter to remove the vocals so my daughter can pretend to be a rock star.

I collect motion-picture "Boom-Mike" intrusion snippets for my Boom-Mike website in support of my Boom-Mike operators class I teach at the local community college. I never post the entire frame, just the mike part.

The sig below has been sacked. My new sig reads:

"Jack Valenti, you can blow me." --
GeneralEmergency


"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --

The undemocratic suprastate (4)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 13 years ago | (#243569)

Every now and again some Slashdotter posts something along the lines of a major corporation being "socialist" - meaning that it has a monopoly and, ergo, is part of the state. I don't necessarily support that type of logic.

But with more and more of the rules we find ourselves living under being dictated by corporate groups, could it be that the line between business and the state is blurring?

I look at phrases like "licenced monitor device" as being the beginning of a worrying trend. The reason is that we're moving from a situation from where something we already had (as opposed to, say, a DVD player, or personal computer, where licences have been a major component since they were placed on the market) being replaced by equipment where tough restrictions on its use are being enforced. Those restrictions are protected by force of law - if you opt to use the equipment without following these rules, you may find yourself being sued. Yet these rules are not being subjected to democratic review.

In the case of TV and radio, the former of which we're seeing this new regime encroach upon, the latter of which we may see soon with the marketing of digital radio and current trends suggesting every digital media device being given these restrictions, this strikes me as particularly obnoxious because over the last 50 years, we've come to rely upon this as a source of much of our information needed to make reasonable judgements about the world we live in. Media has moved from print to radio to TV, and, imperfect though it is, it seems important enough to me to be a source of concern if you can no longer access it without agreeing to rules that you may find blatently unfair and/or counter to your beliefs.

I've seen it argued that licencing rather than legislation is better because you create freedom of choice and let the markets cater for people. But where you have a monopoly, be it on the provision of broadcast television signals for a consortium of interested parties, or a critical piece of system software needed for compatability with peers, is it reasonable to argue that users do have the capability to choose between different products with different licences, and would it not be reasonable to at least have some basic rights instituted for users, at a legal level, so that producers cannot dictate how people use information they have paid for, or equipment they have paid for, in the privacy of their own homes? Does the alternative, which is what we appear to be seeing the start of now, replace elected oversight of law making with unelected legally enforcable rule making?
--

Re:You guys are missing the point. Encrypted *TV* (1)

Lonath (249354) | more than 13 years ago | (#243571)

OMG...I just realized something. Sony has these new commercials out saying they are going to revolutionize home entertainment with some new machine. I'll be damned, they're going to make centralized all-in-one boxes that can download music, movies, books, anything. And it'll all be available and encrypted on a pay-per-use basis. And, they will control the encryption all the way up to the output machines. What a lovely thought.


wow (2)

Phredward (254393) | more than 13 years ago | (#243572)

Anyone remember when jerund lenear predicted this not more than 6 months ago? I didn't think it would actually ever come to pass, and definately not sooner than 10 years from now. Here it is, not 6 months later.

Scary.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

rfsayre (255559) | more than 13 years ago | (#243573)

Who the hell made the Movie and Song industries the people who get to choose how I use things for which I've already paid for?? Hell, never mind about the content that I've paid for, who the hell made them the arbitrers of how HARDWARE that I purchased - PURCHASED! - functions?

Sorry d00d,
The "Movie and Song" companies and "HARDWARE" firms are often one in the same. Free and open markets did make this decision. They can setup their product line any way they want to, and you can buy it or not. Consumers who collectively engage in expensive theft every day made this happen. These industries know that their products are valuable, and will take steps to insure that they're paid for.

The problem here is that Americans have a big problem accepting collective responsibility. Thus any tax on media or bandwidth is seen as unfair. The problem here is that when you insist on paying for your actions only, you get a system with a large amount of information about you. Wouldn't want anything unfair to occur. Get used to collective responsibility, it goes great with a collective medium(the Net).

Like it or not, producing entertainment costs a lot of money. The demand for these services is also high.

"The concept of free and open markets making decisions on what products live or die" is alive and well. If the same company makes monitors and produces movies, and they decide they only want their movies playable on their monitors, they can do that. They have a right to produce whatever they want. To require anything else is an abridgement of their rights to free speech. You can buy it or not. That's where your rights come in.


Art At Home [artathome.org]

It has to be said (2)

baptiste (256004) | more than 13 years ago | (#243574)

All your monitor are belong to us!

And how true that will be!

--

Re:Am I missing something? (4)

TGK (262438) | more than 13 years ago | (#243576)

Augh, some people (not the parrent, the other children) just don't get it do they.

The point is not that the cops can tell you how fast you can and can't drive. That dosn't matter. That has been going on since the birth of the free market.

The point is that, if I buy a car from Company X I can drive it fiarly irespective of what company X says. What's going on here, is that Company X, which has close ties to company Y (a fuel consortium that dominates the market) has gotten company Y to stop producing fuel that my car will take. Thus invalidating my purchace.

The fear is that there will be no phase out period. And there won't be! Once the technology exists in a production model who's going to stop the MPAA from releasing only formats that work with the new monitors?



This has been another useless post from....

Re:When I first heard... (1)

geomcbay (263540) | more than 13 years ago | (#243577)

van eck phreaking? You could bypass this thing more easily by just pointing a digital video camera at the monitor and taping (hopefully making sure, at the very least, the refresh frequencies match). In either case you degrade the original signal significantly..

The problem the content mfgs have now is that these new displays use a purely digital signal and they hate things that can be used to create "perfect" digital copies.

Things you purchase. (1)

kanayo (311491) | more than 13 years ago | (#243586)

Don't buy it if it doesn't meet your needs then, otherwise, you would only encourage them to make and sell you things that deny you of your freedom.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

multicsfan (311891) | more than 13 years ago | (#243587)

There was an article on this a couple weeks (??) ago. I think it was stated that the author/publisher can determine if the image is protected or not. If you do you own video, you can select to require security or not, its your choice.
I suspect that the devices to break the protection may get distributed before the products that use it ;)

Eureka! (4)

sagacious_gnostic (319793) | more than 13 years ago | (#243589)

C-style notation is used throughout the state diagrams and protocol diagrams, although the logic functions AND, OR, and XOR are written out where a textual description would be more clear.

The concatenation operator ' || ' combines two values into one.


I stopped reading about there to go off and fix all my C code. Since when has || been a concatenation operator? To think that for all these years I thought it was a logical OR. No wonder none of my programs work.

The Force (1)

Jahuti (323700) | more than 13 years ago | (#243593)

Beware the Dark Side, Luke... ...and if these creeps don't qualify for users of the Dark Side, I don't know who does. Past time to marshal our forces for the Good Side.

Re:Not before time. (2)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 13 years ago | (#243595)

"Secondly, this technology could also be used in our schools and libraries to ensure that objectionable content"

Um... last I checked, we were talking about encrypting video between the computer and the monitor, not some new kind of web filter. SLIGHT difference.

"such as sexually explicit images"

Darn that Gray's Anatomy...

"or anti-religious propaganda"

... such as the works of Karl Marx and Thomas Jefferson...

"It is difficult to imagine any law-abiding sane adult arguing against this technology."

Maybe because you never considered that the companies that write Linux or BSD or non-Windows 9x drivers for their own hardware is still in the minority? Maybe because you've never considered that this is a heartbeat away from charging you for driver upgrades? ("Buy our monitor and get a free one-year subscription to our driver update service, a $29.95 value!") Maybe because you think that federal wiretap laws are supposed to prevent you from tapping into your own wires?

And, last but not least, maybe you haven't considered that this may kill off computer hobbyists the same way the fuel injector killed off a big chunk of driveway mechanics. It's amazing how willingly you'll pay for that expensive "premium" hardware service and parts when do-it-yourself won't let you unlock the encryption.

Does this mean... (2)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 13 years ago | (#243596)

that I have to view my porn on a pay per spooge basis?

Re:Not before time. (2)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 13 years ago | (#243597)

>Its about time the balance of power shifted away
>from the consumer of media...

This will continue with each side struggling to outpace the technology of the other in a bald faced attempt to further their own goals (fair use rights vs. unrestrained greed).

This will drive technology faster than the space race, ending with media players embedded directly in our brains. No place to break in and copy here. All you will have to do is think about a song and your bank account is immediately debited. (can't get that damn song out of my mind...oops, kaching!)

background on DVI (3)

thinkit (415787) | more than 13 years ago | (#243599)

DVI is a digital spec, as opposed to the current analog VGA spec. a few vid cards have DVI-out, notably hercules and ATI cards. most DVI monitors are LCD, because they natively use the digital information, whereas a CRT has to put a DAC in it to use the DVI signal. they seem to want to encrypt it because this is then essentially a perfect signal that can be copied.

You guys are missing the point. Encrypted *TV* (3)

sakusha (441986) | more than 13 years ago | (#243601)

Go read the paper. This has nothing to do with computer monitors. This is a system for encrypting cable tv, satellite, and other broadband TV systems. This is CSS for your television set. Didn't pay your subscription fee this month? No HDTV for you, your key is revoked. Hacked your HDTV-Tivo? Your key is dead. Want to tape that TV show for time-shifted viewing? Sorry, it can't be intercepted for recording, watch it at the time AOL/TimeWarner/Microsoft broadcast it or forget it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?